JessiWan

Public Key

npub179zca7mxzamcvseep843c8hh5w2uayds3cgtpqrxnsqfa4cn0mlq9jzu7f

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0z3vwldnpwauxgvusn6curmm689wwjxcguy9sspnfcqy76ufhalspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsr60dpr

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

relay.snort.social

Author Public Key

npub179zca7mxzamcvseep843c8hh5w2uayds3cgtpqrxnsqfa4cn0mlq9jzu7f

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-16 00:05:26 UTC

Hello. I like to observe what's wrong with governments and then try to come up with solutions. Not saying I will ever have the power to change anything, nevertheless it's fun. And today I wish to talk about how to prevent presidents from being bribed. I say that Americans should impose incredibly harsh sentences on a president and the person bribing him. I mean a minimum sentence of 40 years imprisonment if they are found guilty. I believe this would work because of the nature of the people involved. Unlike the average people who sometimes commit crimes out of passion or other forms of impulses, the president and the would-be briber are rational. They know what they are doing and they know the risks involved. And they have calculated that the odds of being caught and the resulting punishment are small compared to what they will get if the corrupt deal goes through. So, if we tell them that now there would be an extremely harsh sentence, this should greatly reduce the instances of presidential bribery. And if they try to bypass the law by going through a third-party, for example, if the briber goes to the president's spouse or his son, and then give money to this third-party, there will be an even harsher punishment. I say life imprisonment for all parties involved for trying to circumvent the law like that. And not only that, all three people's assets will be seized by the government. All this money will be awarded to and divided between the person who tipped off the authority about this deal, and the person who provided evidence to help the authority successfully prosecute the criminals. And if these two people are the same person, then he gets all of the money. This way, people know that not only will they be doing the right thing, they will also get quite wealthy rooting out corruption. This will work better than the authority working alone to try to catch bad people. This huge financial reward will really incentivize people to watch presidents and
would-be bribers like a hawk.
So, what do you think of my idea?

2026-07-16 00:05:06 UTC

I want to talk about social security in the US. Roughly speaking it's government money given to people who have worked and are now retirement age.
This program has been facing problems for a while now, mostly because the number of people drawing benefits have outpaced workers who contribute into the program. I have a solution. Instead of relying on social security to cover one's old age, why don't we make people dependent on their children? Maybe we can make people's working-age children pay 5% of their incomes to support them. This makes sense because parents worked hard to raise their children and once the children are grown, it is their moral duty to give back to and care for the people who have made it possible for them to be the adults that they are today. Also, this would encourage people to have more children as the total amount of money they will get will be more if they have raised more children. This would solve the problem of falling birthrates in the country. It's a really nice bonus. Another benefit: it fights inflation. The money people currently pay into the program doesn't get taken out till decades later and inflation can really eat into it. But if people instead get paid from their children's incomes then this money will have "come from the future". In other words, people will need retirement money in the future and the future is when they get the needed money. As such, inflation doesn't cause an issue.
Of course I think regular social security should still exist, for people who decide to not have children. But if they want to be selfish and just enjoy life without putting in the hard work to raise children to be future tax contributors, then they shouldn't expect to be treated the same way as people who put in the work to raise children.
So what do you think of my idea?

2026-07-16 00:04:26 UTC

This one time, I wanted to buy gold from this place with cash. Much to my surprise, they told me that they would need to report any sales involving cash when it was over a certain amount. I was both surprised and confused. However, I had nobody to ask. I didn't know who made up this law, why he made this law, and there was no way for me to challenge this law or voice my concern or even question it in any way.
It's not about the gold anymore. Think about the society we are in, politicians pass all kinds of law, many of which very clearly put restrictions on our freedoms. But we as the people have no recourse when we are in disagreement with these laws. I feel that this isn't right. If there are going to be laws that concern us in such fundamental ways, we need to be able to question and challenge them, and to know who passed them and why.
What I would do if I were a law-maker: I would make it known that I am the author of a particular law. I would then explain my reason for passing this law. I would put all this information very publicly, say, on a relevant government website. Then, I would give people the opportunity to write in to me, to voice their concerns about the law, to question the reason/s behind the making of the law, to tell me that my law is crap, and in some cases, to maybe even change my mind completely and to make me rescind it. All this would be made public for all to see. I imagine it could take the shape of an online forum.
Regarding people not liking certain laws: people don't really have any recourse if they disagree with a law. There are currently very few ways for people to voice their concern/displeasure about a law. They cannot change a law very easily. it's technically true that they can try and lobby their Congressman to get the laws changed, however in practice it's so difficult, time-consuming and potentially expensive that it's not a true option.
Do you think this would be something you could get behind?

2026-07-16 00:02:38 UTC

If I ever come to power, I will put up a section on the white house's official website that's called, "A revolution is the last resort". What this section does is allow dissent, and dissatisfaction about the government, to be freely and openly shared among people. The content will be available to everyone, including the government. The exact details are to be worked out, however one thing I know is that there will be very light moderation. True to its name, this section will permit talks of revolution. I want to do this because currently there is very little that the people can do when the government does something that they don't like. It is incredibly difficult to coordinate any kind of effort among the masses that can meaningfully change the government's actions. This proposal gives people a centralized platform, where they can gather, talk among themselves, air their dissatisfaction, and connect with others who feel the same. With it, someone who uncovered government wrongdoings can more easily make people aware of it. It also introduces dissenting voices that the masses otherwise might not know about. Essentially, I want there to be an easy way for the people to organize themselves politically, and especially to form some kind of opposition to the government, in a peaceful way-- this proposal will greatly reduce the need for a revolution. Some people's reaction to government misdeeds is having a revolution, which in theory can punish a wayward government, however it is very bloody and violent, and is therefore not an ideal solution. I figure that if the government sees that their actions have incurred people's wrath, it will give them a chance to correct themselves, and to put themselves back on the right track to re-win people's approval. I mean, I am pretty sure that nobody wants bloodshed. If they can help it, nobody wants to be involved in a revolution. Not the government, and not the people, either. Nevertheless, this section sends a clear message to the government: You better do what we want you to do, or there will be very unpleasant consequences for you. We the people want you to know that, a violent revolution, is always an option with us. So if you don't listen to us talking to you peacefully, you will talk to the business end of our guns. The choice is yours.
N.B. Something like this might still not work, due to the fact that even if a revolution does take place, the government still won't care, because the people who the revolutionaries would be physically fighting with and potentially harming and injuring, are either foot-soldiers of the government or low-tier government bureaucrats, or the police or the armed forces, or essentially people that those who are in charge simply do not give a shit about. So, we must keep this in mind, if the time does come. Our anger, and all the manifestations of it, should be aimed at the right people.

2026-07-16 00:01:44 UTC

I have been reading an article online regarding the role the government should play in public healthcare, mostly in the American context. Now, I know little about economics, however, I believe that we do not need to know much about economical theories to figure out some very simple, basic principles for ourselves.
I want to point out that healthcare, falls under the class of things called public goods. Public goods are things like, national defense, education, and of course, public healthcare. Note that this class of things is very different from things that fall under the class of businesses, such as those that we would typically find in a market. I will give an example of the latter: A burger joint, or a coffee chain, or a bookstore, or a car mechanic, that sort of things. Basically, they produce something, then sell it to make money, and in the process making a profit. Now, this distinction is important, because we need to realize that the pursuit of profit only sometimes converges with the increasing of human happiness (or the reduction of human suffering, which is pretty much the same thing). And in the case of healthcare, the pursuit of profit often directly runs counter to the reduction of human suffering. I will give an example of how the pursuit of profit sometimes converges with the increasing of happiness: Imagine that there is a burger joint. They make delicious burgers. You go to their restaurant, buy a burger, which gives them a profit. You eat the delicious burger, and your happiness goes up. This is when the owner of the burger joint will say that his business serves a legitimate function, because even though his ultimate aim is to make a profit, he does also provide some kind of benefit, and he does, because his burger gave you an increase in happiness. Now, I will give an example of how the pursuit of profit will actively run against the increase of happiness/the reduction of suffering. Imagine that there is a hospital. There is a cancer patient, who is crying out in pain. Now, the staff at the hospital has two choices: Give him a painkiller to relieve his pain, which would result in the reduction of his suffering, however, it will give them a reduction in profit, as painkillers cost money. Or, they could choose to just let him cry, and not give him any painkillers, which would increase their profit, as they would be saving money by not giving out their painkillers. If you are a believer in that healthcare should be run like a business, as in, you should healthcare would be more "efficient" in a free market-style environment, free of government intervention, then the necessary conclusion is that the hospital should act in pure, rational self-interest, which means they should withhold the painkillers from the cancer patient, so as to save money. Which of course, would result in suffering going up. And it's not simply a matter of us saying that the staff should give the painkillers to the patient. Of course we can tell them to do that, this is easy enough to do, however, another hospital that is willing to withhold the painkillers will always have an edge over the one that is not willing to just let the patient suffer. This is an inherent part of being a profit-seeking business. This imaginary example is simplistic, but nevertheless I believe it captures my point very well, and that is, when it comes to public goods like healthcare, it is a very bad idea to run it like a profit-seeking business. The reason that such a debate even exists is because Americans have an innate dislike of government intervention in spheres of the public life; they see this as communism or socialism. I just want to tell them that the issue really goes beyond left wing-right wing, capitalism versus socialism. It comes down to something that's actually not that political anymore and is in fact something more philosophical, namely that the pursuit of profit is fundamentally incompatible with the having and delivering of public goods. We see a similar theme with national defense, too. Nobody in their right mind would suggest we run the armed forces like a business, and that is because not only is there pretty much no opportunity to make a profit, one would actually have to sink money in, to generate some kind of result. And this result, though it's something that is very good, namely the ability to defend our country from foreign threats, is nevertheless not a profit. Hence, national defense should not be run as a business. There simply is no profit in it. If a business actually tries to run it with the aim of obtaining a profit, it will not only fail, but it will also imperil our country. So, I hope this again reinforces my idea that things that are of the public goods nature, should not be run like a business. We should leave it to the government, not because the government will run it well, but because if we leave it to the "market", it will be even worse.
A related topic: Some people are talking about the role government should play in the training of medical doctors. For example, they talk about whether the government should subsidize medical training and things like that. I just want to say how I feel: In my country, which is Canada, there is a phenomenon called brain drain. Basically, it is a situation where Canadian-trained doctors, upon receiving their license, move to the US in search of higher pay. I remember eyeing these medical students with resentment. I remember thinking to myself, "You take up spaces in our medical school programs, spaces that could have gone to people who actually cared about serving Canadians and caring for their health. When you are all trained up, you go somewhere else, only to make more money for yourself. Do you care about anything else? Do you care about the fact that there are a huge number of Canadians who cannot find a family doctor?". I didn't understand why we allowed such a thing to happen. Why should we waste our educational resources on people who only care about making money? I believe that the ultimate goal of our schools is to train people so that they can help and serve the population that they are a part of. These people should have a stake in our country, whose well-being and prosperity they should care about. And if in serving Canadians like that, they also make a nice income, that's pretty nice and I see nothing wrong with it. But if we just train people in the hopes that they might deign to stay around and serve our populace like they are doing us a favor and that we should be so grateful for these intellectually elite professionals to want to serve us, then we are totally going about it wrong. My solution? Make it so that it's like a contract. Any student who is accepted into a medical school should sign a contract with the government promising that they will serve Canada for a certain amount of time. After this period is up, then they are free to go elsewhere. We already have something similar to this in the private sector. I believe that some companies send their employees to training and make them sign a contract promising that they will stay with the company for a certain amount of time before they can go for other opportunities. It sounds very reasonable to me.
The two issues I mentioned really don't have too much to do with healthcare. They have more to do with how we should organize our societies. Also, for my second point, what role that certain actors of our societies should play. We should recognize that everybody that exists in a society does not just have entitlements to resources, they also have obligations, some sort of responsibilities, towards the society that has provided for them in many ways and is in fact a very big reason that they are able to be the successful individuals that they are today.

2026-07-16 00:00:30 UTC

I want to talk about making it difficult for divorce to happen for frivolous reasons when the marriage has produced a child. To make it really clear, I think this should only be confined to cases where the couple has a child together. Normally, it's not anybody's business, and certainly not the government's, when someone wants to end their marriage. Nobody should be able to stop them, nor to question them. However, when a child is involved, it's different. The child's needs come first, ahead of either parent's needs. I feel that a child has the best chance of growing into a happy adult if she grows up in an intact family with both biological parents, who are the most likely to truly love her and care for her. I believe that we should force people to make sacrifices for the happiness of their child. If you are simply "unhappy" in your marriage, then I am sorry, that is not sufficient grounds for a divorce. Not when you have a child. I think it's really unfair to a child if its mother divorces her husband casually, only to marry someone, taking the child away from her biological father and forcing her to live with the step-father. Not only is the step-father less likely to love the child, there can be issues of neglect, or worse, issues of molestation or even rape. It's also unfair to the biological father to lose his child, when he hasn't done anything wrong to deserve the divorce. This is why I feel that no-fault divorce should be forbidden when the couple has a child together. People should be required to produce hard evidence that the marriage is no longer bearable, for example if a spouse has committed adultery, or if the husband hits the wife or the child, or if there is evidence of sexual crime, or other similar things of a very serious nature. I mean, we already throw men in jail for failing to pay child support. If we can do this to people in the name of children's welfare, then surely we can legally stop people from casually divorcing their spouse. What I am proposing is not nearly as draconian as what we currently do to men. So I hope people won't complain that the government doesn't have the right to do this. If you didn't protest about the court putting men in jail for not making child support, then you don't have the right to protest about this. So don't be a hypocrite, and more importantly, think about the child's welfare and how important having an intact family is for her. People are adults and I expect them to know that it's not only about themselves anymore when they produce a baby. Now there is another person involved. People should put the child first in everything they ever consider. And if they won't, then we will get the government to force them to. And I don't feel bad about this at all. Yes I admit that this will constitute an infringement on individual liberty, however, the thing is, the government already compels people to do all kinds of things, some of which are reasonable, some aren't. At least with my proposal, there is a purpose. I am trying to protect children. So yes, I feel completely justified. That said, I propose to establish some kind of agency that provides help and guidance to parents who are unhappy in their marriage. I want to help them identify what exactly is causing their dissatisfaction to the point where they are considering divorcing the father (or mother) of their child. I believe that with counselling and good advice, people will be able to work things out with their spouse and salvage their marriage, which is a precious thing. I care about children's welfare, however I also care about parents' happiness too. I want to do everything I can to ensure people aren't miserable in their marriage.

2026-07-15 23:59:39 UTC

I believe that whether to be racist should be an individual's decision. If a white person wants to discriminate against someone of another race, he should be free to do so. We all know how lefties would react to this, they would scream "racist", "bigoted", "evil"..etc. I feel that this is psychologically coercive, and very unfair. It borders on bullying. I do not share the lefties' overwhelming compulsion to police people's thoughts and to demand thought uniformity. I feel that it takes all kinds to make a society. As long as someone isn't breaking the laws, then they should be left alone. And these racists aren't breaking any laws . Racism is never a crime. When you get to the bottom of it, it's just someone of one race being nasty to someone of another race. But being nasty is not a crime. When we go through life, there is no guarantee that we will always meet kind, nice people. If we come across someone who is not nice to us, and sometimes this is due to racist reasons, then guess what? it is simply too bad. We just need to know that that's life. Learn to deal with it and move on. Remember, people have the right to dislike anybody, for any reason you want.

2026-07-15 23:54:50 UTC

I want to encourage more businesses, but with an emphasis on the manufacturing sector. I have seen a lot of small businesses, which is good, however they are mostly service-based. Businesses like, sandwich shops, restaurants, hair salons, bakeries...etc, you get the idea. Some operate consultancy firms. some started with a small restaurant and turned it into a chain. Others produce products like scented candles, little keepsakes, stickers, hand-made jewelries, ...etc. These are fine, I don't have a problem with them, and in fact, they produce real products and services, and they are good for the economy through the taxes that they pay and the jobs that they create. However, selling candles and making sandwiches and the like do not build a nation. What I really want to see is steel manufacturing, the laying of cables, building of ships, cars and planes, manufacturing of turbines, heavy machineries and engines, constructing of power plants, things of that nature. These are in the manufacturing sector, and they do more than contribute to the economy, they form the backbone of a nation. But we do not see too many of these kinds of businesses, and I think it's because they require quite a bit of start-up money, specialized skills, knowledge and technical expertise, which a lot of people simply don't have. I want to know if there's anything I can do to help encourage regular people to star a business in these areas. Maybe we can provide them with the capital or expertise through government funding. I will also clear away any barriers to entry. I firmly believe that by encouraging growth in the manufacturing sector, everybody wins. The country wins, because it has a base that manufactures anything it might need. Workers win because they get jobs. Businesses win because they get to make money. It's a net positive, with absolutely no negatives.

2026-07-15 23:54:16 UTC

If I ever come into power, I will ban day-trading. Day-trading is not investing. It also does not provide a good or service, it's just making money for the sake of making money. It does not contribute to the society in any way. Yes it's legal, but that does not mean it's right or that it should be tolerated. What it really boils down to is just financial sleight of hand. Clever? Yes. Meaningful? No.
Another activity I will ban is interest rate arbitrage. Basically, it means borrow money at a place that has lower interest rate, and then loan it out at a place that has higher interest rate, thus making money through the spread. The exact details aren't important; the important thing is that this activity does not generate any goods or services. In other words, it's making money for the sake of making money, just like day-trading mentioned above. As such, I will ban it on the grounds of it not contributing to our society.
Some people might say that interest rate arbitrage performs a service. They say that they make markets more efficient because by buying low and selling high, they minimize the differences in prices or rates between two markets. To me, this is an incidental benefit. It's not a real benefit. People only mention this "benefit" after the fact. They cite this benefit because they want to legitimize interest rate arbitrage, a useless, parasitic behavior, that nevertheless provides an easy, cushy way to make money. That's why these investment bankers try so hard to persuade lawmakers about these sorts of things. I will not allow this. Until such time comes that people can actually convince me of any real, meaningful service interest rate arbitrage provides, it will remain banned. The above are but a few examples off the top of my head. Believe me, there are a lot more useless commercial/financial activities that do not provide any sort of real benefit or goods or services, nor do they contribute to society in any way, they exist solely for the reason that greedy and lazy people can make money quickly and easily. All such behaviors will be banned. You want to get rich? Work or produce something.

2026-07-15 23:53:18 UTC

I would make it so that news media of any kind, be it TV stations, cable channels, newspaper, magazines...etc, have to operate on a strictly non-profit basis. They cannot be bought or sold by someone with money. This is so that the outlet will not maintain its spirit passed down from its founder and through the many successors, and not become yet another among the many things that the wealthy can simply purchase by whipping out their check-book. If the owner of an outlet wants to retire, or otherwise does not wish to continue owing the outlet, he has to select a successor and then pass on his torch to him/her. And if the owner hasn't got the chance to do that or if he for some reason is unable to find a successor, the government will take over temporarily, run the paper for the time being until such a time comes that a successor that can successfully maintain the spirit of the outlet can be named. The reason is this: These news outlets are charged with the incredibly important function of keeping the population up-to-date with what's going on in the country and the world. People rely on them to make informed choices about not just politics, but literally about everything in the public sphere. And we have been letting these institutions become sellable to the highest bidder, and it hasn't been working out well. People with money to burn are now the gatekeepers of information. They put stuff that they want us to think in their programming, and we gobble it up. If they want a certain candidate to win an election, they promote him and we elect him. They want the country to go to war with another country, they put that in and we go to war with that country. They want to demonize someone, they make him look like the Devil and we demonize him. They have an editorial section in the newspaper, which really is just about opinions, and that actually has nothing to do with news, and we say, "I don't see why we can't have an editorial page!", with the end result editors getting to shape and influence and manipulate the public opinions because most people lack the ability to think for themselves and they blindly follow these editors, whose views are pre-approved by the rich owners. They also put slants as well as spins in their "news" reporting, and the public follows them unquestioningly. News media being sellable means extremely wealthy people wield even more power that their already impressive riches grant them. These uber-rich media moguls staff their teams with people who will do their bidding and say whatever they want, so as to advance the moguls' financial and political agendas further. If occasionally they get resistance, they will just very simply and easily replace him/her with someone more obedient. There is no transparency, there is no real, objective news reporting. It's just endless mass manipulation and the shaping and re-shaping of public opinion disguised as news.
News media should NOT be treated like a product that has a certain price tag on it. Because it serves a very important function, which is to inform the public. This is why I don't want newspapers, TV networks to be able to be bought and sold. Now, this is easier said than done. However, I believe that the technical details can be worked out later. But first we need to have the realization that an apparatus that serves such an incredibly important social function cannot be commercialized, otherwise it becomes a commodity that someone with the deepest pocket can just scoop up. We should keep this in mind.
I would also make certain that news media outlets conform to certain rules to ensure the quality of their news reporting. The first one: on TV, there cannot be any music accompanying news. The reason is because they can play ominous-sounding, "evil" music so that people will associate someone or something with being evil. Manipulation of this kind will be made illegal. The reporting of news and consumption of news should be very sober processes. Newspaper also will be forbidden by law from putting spins on things. This is otherwise known as spin-doctoring. Again, the reason is that the public is easily fooled, they cannot tell when a spin is being worked into the story, and they get influenced in a way they otherwise wouldn't have. I consider this to be a highly unethical, manipulative act, so it must be banned. Also, newspapers will no longer be allowed to have an editorial section. They also cannot have a section where they show reader feedback that they receive. The former because a newspaper is for the dissemination of news. It's not about the opinion of a few editors. If they want to display some dude's opinion, then the "newspaper" is no longer newspaper, it needs to be called opinion-aper. In fact, I would ban the expression of opinion altogether in all newspapers. If we cannot give equal representation to all points of view, then we shouldn't be giving any to any views at all, because that would be the unfair promotion of certain views over others. And I want to ban newspaper from having a reader feedback section because what they actually do is selectively show certain kinds of feedback while deliberately withholding other kinds, or in plain language, they withhold the kind of feedback that does not align with what they already believe. Again, they do this to shape public opinion. They create the illusion that the public consensus is such a way, and the public being the intellectually unsophisticated fools that they are, lap it up. This is incredibly bad and dangerous for a free democracy. It needs to be banned. I will also be playing watchdog to inconsistent reporting. For example, in reports of crimes, if the perpetrator is a minority, and the newspaper or TV neglects to mention this, but in another crime where the perpetrator is white and they make his race front and center, I consider this to be a deliberate act and the agency in question will not simply be fined, it will be forcibly confiscated by the government and the government will assign a new owner to it, someone who pledges that he will not engage in such a dishonest, manipulative behavior. The message I want to send to these news media: I expect you to be honorable, ethical, consistent, and honest in your reporting. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be owning a paper or a TV station. And the above are just the few instances I can think of at the moment, trust me there are many, many more cases where they engage in manipulative, subtly misleading manners. As I encounter these, they will all be punished. Extremely harshly. There needs to be standards in the news media industry. There needs to be an agency that oversees them, regulates them, and punishes them whenever the situation calls for it. It shouldn't be this big open free-for-all where the person with the most money can buy things up and play with them like they are his personal toys.

2026-07-15 23:51:13 UTC

Things I would do if I ever came into power:
1. Take money out of politics. As it stands now, elections are expensive, and campaigns require a lot of money to finance. Especially presidential campaigns. So what results is that candidates need to find wealthy donors to back them. What this means is that rich people control our political system. Presidents, once they get elected, are beholden to the donors and will pass laws that the donors want. I am sure we are all familiar with this phenomenon. So, to fight this, I propose that we have candidates write down their platforms, their campaign promises, anything that they say to persuade the readers to vote for them, and compile a book out of it. Then this book is freely distributed both online and in paper-form in real life, so that anybody can access these writings very easily. This requires very little money (websites and paper are cheap). Then, we move to ban TVs, newspapers, radio, any other form of media, from mentioning any candidate at all. I want to do this because if we don't, then candidates that have wealthy backers will be able to buy TV time and spaces in newspapers to promote themselves. This gives them an edge over the other candidates who can't afford these things. So the end result is still big money influencing the outcomes of elections. Another bonus with having candidates write their stuff is we get to weed out the dummies. We expect our political leaders to be able to write. And to prevent them from simply hiring some hack to ghost-write for them, we lay out extremely harsh punishments for the candidates and writers who conspire to deceive the public like that.
2. Currently, there is absolutely zero recourse for the public if their president did not fulfill his campaign promises, or otherwise did a poor job as a president. I propose that we have this system whereby, once a president is retired from office, there be an account with all the banks in the country. We ask people whether they think the ex-president did a terrible job or not. If they think yes, they put 300 dollars in this account. If half the population do this, the ex-president goes to jail for an certain period of time. If 60% of people do this, he goes to jail even longer. And the rate at which his jail sentence lengthens goes up exponentially. And if 90% of the people are unhappy with him, he goes to jail for life. My reasoning is that with any president, there will always be some people who are dissatisfied with him. So I set the threshold at half of the population. However, if over 90% of people want to vote him into jail, then this is a very clear sign that he truly did do a terrible job, and an extremely harsh sentence is justified. The 300 dollars is set at such a level that it requires a not insignificant amount of money, so that people won't put an ex-president in jail lightly. But it's low enough that most people can still realistically afford it.
I want to do this because I remember talking to someone online. He was extremely unhappy with a certain law that a lawmaker in his state passed. He said he wanted said lawmaker to think, "if I pass this law, will I make it home alive tonight?" Apparently he was so unhappy that he was willing to commit acts of violence. Even though I share his anger, nevertheless I don't believe that violence is the solution to bad politicians. It's not realistic to expect people to take up arms and violently punish bad political leaders. There needs to be a way, a legal, non-bloody way for people to punish politicians for doing a poor job. Currently, there are zero consequences that politicians have to face for not carrying out the will of the people, so they do whatever they like. They know that they won't be punished in any way. The people know this is wrong, and they get angry. But this doesn't achieve anything. I want people's anger to mean something. Stewing in anger, complaining to other people, writing angry letters, making anger phone calls are currently all that we can do, and trust me these things don't mean anything to a bad politician. This has to change.
3. Conversely, if a president did a good job, he should be rewarded. I propose that there be an account with all the banks in the country that's called the ex-president's account. Anybody can put money into this account. If they think an ex-president truly did a good job, they can put in any amount of money to show their appreciation for him and to reward him for a job well done. Currently, not only are there no consequences for being a poor president, there are also no rewards for being a good one, either. This is very bad and creates a situation where presidents are pretty much guaranteed to be shitty. However, they now know that not only will they go to jail for doing a poor job, they will also be given lots of money for doing a good job. This creates an incentive for them to carry out the will of the people and to do things that benefit the masses. I mean, right now, what do we do for good ex-presidents? We might write books about them, praise them in newspapers, maybe sing songs about them, all of these things, though nice, do not benefit them in any tangible, real way. And this makes it very tempting for them to sell out the people and to cozy up to rich donors, who can and do benefit them tangibly by giving them money. I want to change this.
4. Lastly, I want to create something called The Shaming. Basically it lists the names of the closest blood relatives of a president. If a president fell from grace, not only will he be punished, it will also bring shame to his family, especially his children and other close relatives. This is yet another way to prevent supreme leaders of the land from engaging in behaviors that harm the nation but benefit themselves. The motivation for corruption, bribe-taking and similar behaviors is usually to benefit their children financially. They desire to see their children thrive. I want to use this to our advantage. I want them to know that their unethical behaviors will not pay. If their offspring is associated in the public mind with someone who is on the take, then it doesn't matter how much money they leave him, he will be in a state of shame, and people will shun him. They will not want to associate with him in any way. They will also want to avoid marrying him. I believe this should serve as a very strong deterrent against improper presidential behaviors. It's a weapon we have against corruption at the highest level. It's something our ancestors had done for thousands of years to police one another's behavior. If you do something shameful, you will bring shame on your family. Then your bloodline gets disgraced. It's powerful stuff. Some might think this would be an intrusion on the privacy of the politician's family members. I say, not so. What will happen is the candidate my party puts forth will voluntarily disclose this info. His family gives him permission, because they don't fear that he will do anything to bring them shame. The public sees this, and thinks, "This person has nothing to hide, and his family have complete faith in him. He is the person I want to vote for!" And then, other candidates will have no choice but to follow suit, because they will lose to us if they don't. This way, nobody is forced to do anything, nobody's privacy is trampled on, and my vision is brought to reality. It's pure genius.

2026-07-15 23:50:18 UTC

I've been thinking about marital property in the States, and about how assets are treated and divided in a divorce.
Personally, I think that we should overhaul the system, and treat assets of a married couple as completely separate and individually owned, unless they specifically designate a particular asset as jointly owned. For example, only the money in a joint account should be considered marital property. And only this money should be equally divided in the event of a divorce. I feel that even though marriage is the merging of two people, we need to recognize that the people involved are still two separate individuals, and their assets shouldn't be mixed. This is important when we consider that they might divorce, something that happens quite often. I believe that the way we currently treat spousal assets is not good enough, and it simply discourages people from thinking about marriage. I am sure you have heard these sentiments expressed, usually by men but can be by women too: "I am really hesitant to get married because I could lose half my worth if it ends in divorce." I want to assure people, especially people who have assets, that it is not financially risky to get married.
A related thing. I remember this divorce case, I forget the details, but basically, the husband was a very successful business man, and the wife was a stay-at-home mother. The husband met a new woman so he initiated divorce proceedings. They were trying to determine how to divvy up the assets, which were quite considerable because the husband made a lot of money. Anyway, they ended up in a court and I believe the judge awarded the wife half, because the wife took care of the home front so that the husband could completely focus on his career. Apparently the judge thought the woman was an indispensable part of the husband's success. I am not saying the wife didn't contribute, I agree that she did in a real way, however, if you think about it, the husband was the one who earned all that money. The wife didn't work and didn't earn any of it, she merely made it possible for the husband to not have to worry about anything at home. Put another way, the wife was necessary for the husband's success, however she alone was not sufficient for that success. She should get some money, but not half. Maybe like 1/5th of the money or some such. A good amount but not half of it. We should treat cases like this really carefully, because I believe the way we currently handle things, we are sending out a message to financially successful men that getting married is very risky, and they could lose half of what they worked hard to earn.
Some might mention pre-nuptials. I just want to point out that these have been over-turned by courts before, so they are not a fool-proof way to protect one's assets in a divorce.

2026-07-15 23:49:56 UTC

Currently, in the West, there are a lot of risks involved when starting a business. An entrepreneur can in theory succeed wildly, but there are times when he fails, and when that happens, he can go into a lot of debt. So it's quite risky. And when a business does succeed, most of the profit accrues to the owner. He can and often does not pay his employees in a way that is commensurate with what they help bring in. And in this sense, the workers do not really share in the prosperity, despite the fact they did a lot to help the business succeed. And we can't do anything about it because businesses are private entities, they don't answer to us, they can in theory do whatever they please.
I have a suggestion to improve the situation that will lower the risks of starting a business, encourage more people to start a business, help out fledgling businesses, and ensure workers share in the prosperity that they helped to create. Why don't we have a program where the government specifically invests in start-up businesses? The government will have a stake in a business, either through a loan of money or the providing of technical guidance, analysis, research on the best location for opening the shop, taking on a part of the costs of training employees, helping with retaining staff, making the application for business license and permits easier, and similar things. Basically, being involved and helping out in some way. Helping the owners in a way so as to lessen the risks of starting a new business. And I believe this is good for the economy because more people will be encouraged to start a business. They will see that starting a business is not as risky as before and this would result in more people attempting entrepreneurship. And in return, the business owner will promise the government that he will pay his employees well if his business does take off. Like maybe base their pay on a share of the company's profit. This way, the workers benefit too. The success of a business should not just all accrue to the owner, it should go to the workers as well, people who do the actual work. Also, maybe the government can make businesses promise that they will not outsource their jobs or move their operations overseas, and this protects American workers. If they can't promise these, then the government will withdraw funding or help. The government can also extract a promise from businesses that they will not engage in shady business practices (predatory pricing comes to mind). The government can do this because it has shares in said businesses through its various involvements. And this is just one example, there are potentially many other barely legal, unethical business practices that can be prevented this way. When this happens, everybody wins. And the best part about my idea is that it's completely voluntary. Business owners can choose to refuse government help and go it alone, and this would be totally fine.
I don't know if this is a novel idea or not. Maybe someone's already thought of it. Anyway, I want to create a situation where costs as well as benefits of entrepreneurship are more evenly spread out so that there will be more businesses as well as more people benefitting from the success of businesses.

2026-07-15 23:48:53 UTC

I have noticed that whenever the topic of foreign workers (and by extension, third world immigrants) comes up, there will always be someone who says people who don't want more foreigners are just "afraid" of competition. I want to ask him, what's so great about competition? You see, his automatic assumption is that competition is always good, especially when it comes from foreigners. And if you don't want it, it's because you are afraid, or some such nonsense.
My position: competition is only good if it leads to innovation. An example: if you compete against, say, the Chinese, they can't innovate as well as Americans, so they might try to compete in other areas. Maybe they make the workers work extra hard. Maybe they will put in huge amounts of over time. The owners might also pay the workers peanuts, so that their products will be cheaper and more competitive. And if Americans want to be able to compete against all that, they might have to make similar sacrifices. This is the bad kind of competition, we don't want that. Now, if the competitor is Germans, the situation is different. The Germans are more like Americans in the sense that they are better at innovating, and their workers are unwilling to work like slaves or to work for poor pay or to work really long hours. So, in order to be competitive, they have to innovate. They have to design truly outstanding products. To compete with that, Americans have to come up with even better products. This is the good kind of competition that we want. My point isn't that all competition is bad. But rather, not all competition is good. I also think it's strange that regular people would embrace foreign workers like that, because having to compete against cheap foreign labor who are willing to work for peanuts only benefits the owner class, regular people don't benefit from it. In fact, regular people lose a lot. Are people being paid to say these sorts of things ? Nobody I know in real life is in favor of foreign workers. This person is, at best, confused; at worst, possibly a shill paid by big money to brainwash us.
There is a related phenomenon: where there are foreigners and immigrants already in the country, and native-born Americans are understandably unhappy about jobs being taken. Some people take a really unsympathetic view towards these Americans. They say that Americans should upgrade their skills or seek further education or anything along those lines, so that they can remain competitive. My response: how would YOU like it if you were put in such a position? To be forced to compete against foreigners who are willing to work for a lot less? Now your days and nights would be filled with endless school and/or training, leaving you little time for yourself and your family, and you constantly have to upgrade yourself lest you lose your livelihood? You would be living in a state of constant worry and anxiety because if you ever tried to slow down your pace to enjoy life, your job could be gone. Nobody was able to answer these questions. Their own job is secure (for now), so they lecture others. I would really love to see how they would react when the shoe is on the other foot. Furthermore, these people get the idea in their heads that people exist solely to make money for their employers. And if they ever cease being useful money machines, they need to go or be replaced. It doesn't occur to them that these workers are people with families and loved ones, and they have their lives that they want to live. The value of a human being does not depend on their financial usefulness.

2026-07-15 23:47:50 UTC

A few more thoughts on businesses:
If I ever come into power, I will ban any companies or businesses that try to induce the public to become dependent on them. One thing comes to mind: the then Monsanto's terminator seeds. Basically Monsanto had patented certain seeds for farmers to buy and use. These seeds were genetically engineered to grow only one harvest. If the farmers wanted to plant more next year, they had to buy them all over again from Monsanto. Shenanigans like this will be made illegal under my rule. I will also ban planned obsolescence. In plain English, it means companies deliberately design products such that they will break down prematurely, so that customers have to keep buying a new one, thus increasing sales and profit for the business. It doesn't produce anything of value, it's purely a way to make money for money's sake. Not mention also manipulative and unethical. The proper way of making money should be to design a product really well, make sure it works as long as possible, so that the customer gets a big bang for his buck. And then, he will rush out and tell his friends to buy this product, because its quality is so good. THIS, is how a business should make money. It is not to make intentionally shitty products that force customers to have to keep buying replacements.
Some companies employ actuarial science to figure out the optimal price that will extract the most profit for them. What does this mean? Basically, they hire mathematicians to calculate the highest price at which there are the most number of people who can afford the product. For example, a cup of cappuccino. If they price it too low, and even though a lot of people can afford it, they won't make too much money. But if they raise the price too high, very few people will be able to afford it, and they end up with less profit too. So they need to figure out the best, most optimal level, the "sweet spot" of prices.
There are corporations who send their female employees to have abortions, so that they can focus on their careers and make money for the owners. This absolutely disgusts me. But it's partly our fault too, as a society. We have set up our society in such a way that any business that isn't ruthlessly cut-throat, will fail and be replaced by another that's cut-throat and ruthless. A company that treats employees kindly by allowing them time off for pregnancy and child-rearing will likely be outcompeted by a company that is not willing to do those things. So, it really isn't any one business getting out of hand; the entire system is set up so that if it's not one company acting this way, it will be another.
When a business lowers the prices of its products, it is not trying to give you cheaper products. Rather they do this to undercut their competitor. They will lower the prices enough to force out their competitor. This is why you will never see truly low prices. And if you do, the low, low prices won't last forever. Once the competition is gone, the business will raise the price back up. This is what Walmart is known for. And while we are on Walmart, I heard that they get away with paying unreasonably low wages to their employees, and then have sessions where they coach the employees on how to apply for state health benefits to supplement their meager incomes. In other words, your tax money subsidizes these people's existence because Walmart is too cheap to pay their workers a living wage. If I ever come to power, I will look into this matter, and Walmart will be in serious trouble.

2026-07-15 23:46:56 UTC

How do politicians get bought?
Imagine that you are a lawmaker of a very high rank. You pass laws, which must be obeyed. So, naturally, wealthy people flock to you. They want your ear. They want to influence you. Maybe you get approached by someone sent by, say, Blackrock. They want you to pass certain laws that are favorable to them. Maybe laws that allow them to grab even more land, at the expense of regular people. If you say yes, they will give you a $2 million check on the spot, plus they promise to donate to your next campaign generously when your term is up. Now consider the other scenario: you want to do the right thing by refusing their offer. You want land to be more accessible to regular people. Do the people know you are doing this and then thank you for it? Most likely, no. But Blackrock will be immediately displeased. Not only will you not get a $2 million check written to your name, they might hint at you that they will donate to your rival's campaign at the next election. So, doing the right thing is thankless and it kills your political career. This is how our politicians get bought by big money. We can get mad all we want when a corruption scandal breaks out, but not realizing the true mechanism by which corruption occurs means we will just get the same thing over and over. Kicking out individual corrupted politicians is simple enough, but doesn't solve the problem on a fundamental level. We need to completely overhaul the way we conduct politics.
What I described above is very closely related to lobbying. And by lobbying I mean the in-person kind, we have all seen it, men in business suits surrounding legislators, trying to talk to them and to get them to pass certain laws. I feel that this is essentially legalized bribery. They are giving gifts and money, and doing favors to lawmakers so that the latter will pass laws that are favorable to these lobbyists' organization or company. Why should we allow this to happen? What good does lobbying do for the country? It does absolutely nothing. It's just rich people finding one more way to game our political system to benefit themselves.
I believe that people should be able to present their concerns to their lawmakers so as to influence what laws get passed. However, everybody should go through the same channel. People can write lawmakers letters or emails. Nobody should have in-person access to lawmakers because this simply means people with money will be able to gain an unfair advantage over the average person, who doesn't have the time nor the money to lobby. I say that we ban lobbying. Who's with me?
A related thing: I think that politicians should have a way to boast about what they have done for the people. And get rewarded for it. Otherwise, there will be a temptation to sell the people out. And if a politician has truly done something wonderful for us, I don't see why he can't draw attention to it. We should create a centralized platform where politicians can freely tell people what good they have done. And everybody will be able to verify any claims on it, because everything will be publicly available. On this platform, they can also talk about any sacrifices they have made personally in order to put the people first, or their heroic refusal of large amounts of money from lobbyists who try to bribe them.

2026-07-15 23:44:14 UTC

There have been debates about whether to abolish the death penalty. I refrain from participating in this debate, because to me personally, there aren't many differences between being imprisoned for life, and being put to death. In both situations, the criminal will never be able to have children anymore, so his bad genes will be removed from the gene pool. What I am concerned about, is criminals who have committed heinous crimes, but the crimes themselves aren't grave enough that the criminals will either be jailed for life or be given the death penalty. They might be jailed for a long time, but they will eventually get out. And some of them, especially the men, can still potentially have children. His genes, which we can imagine must be bad in some way, will get passed on. This is why I advocate that we give mandatory germ-line gene therapy for criminals who have committed very serious crimes. Germ-line gene therapy means their sperm will be genetically altered so that the propensities towards committing serious crimes will be permanently deleted. Of course, we probably don't have the technology yet. We can't say for sure which cluster of genes is responsible for criminality. But the principle behind it is sound. There is a genetic component to all human behaviors; the only questions are to what degree and how it interacts with environmental factors. We have tried to exert control over the environment, for example, we try pretty hard in schools to teach young people not to commit crimes, that it's wrong to rape/kill/steal...etc. It's not perfect but at least we are trying. However, we haven't done anything on the gene front. We just let everybody have babies. Good people have babies, but so do bad people. We do nothing to make sure bad genes don't proliferate. This is bad and it needs to change. And when what I suggested is combined this with an environment that generally tells people to be good, we should be able to reduce serious crimes to a very low degree. The criminal justice system as it currently is, is not good enough. The only reason we still have it around is because it's better than having nothing. Sure, it does it best to catch criminals and jails some of them. But jailing people after the fact doesn't really do a whole lot in terms of preventing future crimes. Ex-cons will likely still have urges to commit crimes again, and their conceivably bad genes will certainly predispose their offspring to criminality, to a certain degree. I say this is a pointless exercise. Jailing people is no longer enough. We need to do better than that. Forcing serious offenders to undergo genetic therapy will have material effects on actually preventing crimes, something that truly matters. As for forcing people to change their genes--some might have a problem with it. I don't. I can do it with a clear conscience, because offenders of serious crimes should repay their debts to society that they have wronged. And having gene therapy is a perfect way to go about that. There is another issue: some people might say, but what if the criminal repents? I understand this concern. We should give people a chance to repent their old ways, in fact this is why some prisons are called penitentiary, basically a place where people go to repent. I say that I believe some criminals do genuinely repent. However, the problem is, some don't, but they are shrewd enough to realize that if they tell us they have repented, they get breaks. Personally, I would rather be very unforgiving, for the protection of the society. I am not flint-hearted. Rather, if your heart gets too soft and let those go who you shouldn't let go, you will risk creating a lot of future victims. And I personally think protecting innocent people trumps giving felons a second chance. Another thing: some people might have an issue with "ex-cons will likely still want to commit crimes again". This statement I stand by. I stand by this because a lot of criminals commit crimes out of compulsion. they literally cannot stop themselves from committing a crime. The prospect of prison time only deters those criminals who are more rational. But a lot of serious offenders aren't rational and prison-time does nothing to deter them. They have almost an urge to commit crimes.
Finally, on whether people can truly change. My thought on this is that some people, aka criminals, do repent their way. But they are still the same person on the inside. They vow to never commit crimes again and maybe they even do make good on this, but I believe in a lot of cases, it's because they don't want to go to jail again. It's boring in prisons. They want the freedom of being a free man. People are drawn to the idea that criminals can be reformed and people can change, because it's romantic and dramatic. But it has nothing to do with reality. People believe it not because it's true, but rather, because they want it to be true. I am reminded of this man that I used to talk to. He was incredibly off-putting, so I cut off contact with him. If he approached me and asked for forgiveness and wanted to be friends again, I would say no. And it's not because I am harsh and don't want to give people a second chance. But rather, I know that the overall unpleasantness that characterized time spent with him would always be there. He might make a conscious effort not to say things that would offend me, and maybe he would even succeed. However, his core personality and thought patterns would never change. Forgiving him would just mean subjecting myself to his unpleasant self all over again and then I would eventually have to block him again. It's a pointless exercise. And it's the same principle with forgiving a criminal. The Him of him will never change. At his core, he will always be the same person.

2026-07-15 22:53:44 UTC

Now I want to talk about things that stupid people do or believe in:
Being well-read is the equivalent of being intelligent.
Do not know that being well-read or knowledgeable merely means one is not ignorant. It does not necessarily mean he is intelligent.
Cannot tell the difference between ignorance and stupidity. In fact, these two words are synonyms for them.
Think that they are good judges of other people's level of intelligence.
Think that if someone is ignorant, that it means this person must be stupid.
Judge someone's level of intelligence by how much he knows, not by how he manipulates what he does know.
Fail to recognize intelligence in others because one actually has to be intelligent in order to detect intelligence in others.
Think that asking questions is a sign of stupidity.
Think that someone who knows how to use the latest technology must be smart.
Lastly, I want to mention a few things that a lot of people think indicate stupidity. Most of the times they'd be right, however not always, as the truly intelligent can be guilty of these from time to time. Things like:
Absent-mindedness
Slow in one's responses
Difficulty in focusing
Taking longer than others to read something
The intelligent can be absent minded at times because they are always thinking about something in their head. Although, these thoughts they are thinking do not always have a point. Some of them are slow in coming up with a comeback because they are better at expressing themselves on paper, rather than in talking. They can have difficulty in focusing because the material presented before them does not capture their interest. And finally, they might take longer to read a book or even a page, because they are not content with leafing through something to get all the pertinent info. They want to learn and commit to memory all the new words, turns of phrases and expressions in the book, so that they might use them in the future when they write. They don't feel the need to compete with their classmates to see who is the quickest reader. These people have something else in mind.
I also want to point out that the ability to think quick on one's feet, and being able to come up with answers to questions fast, are not necessarily signs of intelligence. Especially the latter. Sometimes, some questions are meant to provoke thoughts. They are not to be answered literally. But some people, many of whom are male, and who lean left politically, watch too many TV shows where geniuses are portrayed as being "quick", succumb to the idea that if he can always have a lightning-fast answer or in some cases, a fast "comeback", he must be smart. No, no, and no. True intelligence is not measured strictly by how fast one can think. True, if you are intelligent, you can usually think fast. But, there are cases where intelligence is a "slow-burn" process. Some true geniuses think rather slowly, but they think very deeply. They are not in a rush to come up with answers. They consider that to be glibness. They understand that words like "ponder", "reflect" and "contemplate" exist, for a reason. And contemplate is exactly what they do. But these afore-mentioned lefties see someone's lack of immediate responses and think to themselves, rather smugly, that he must be below them in terms of intellectual prowess. How wrong these lefties are.

2026-07-15 22:51:43 UTC

My advice to every single person: read more. Stop watching TV, movies or videos on youtube. And stop wasting time watching sports or any other form of entertainment for the masses. Reading allows you to improves your communication skills, and to express yourself more effectively. It also gives you valuable knowledge and wisdom, things that allow you to navigate your environment, deal with your problems, and also protect you from people who try to deceive or harm you. And for those of us who are into activism, it is absolutely essential. Reading gives us the tool to influence people and make them come to our side.
At the beginning, you will be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of stuff you can read. This is natural, so don't sweat about it. As you read more and get better at it, you will soon gain the skill to quickly scan through a book to assess whether it is worth reading. So don't be put off and don't get discouraged. It takes time to get to that level, just like with all things that are worthwhile. You also don't need to know everything, or every word in a book. You only need to know stuff that is relevant to what you want to do. For example, I limit my reading to politics and philosophy because these subjects help with my activism. In doing so, I greatly cut down on the amount of time that I have to spend.
Trust me, it's not as difficult as it first appears.

2026-07-15 22:48:48 UTC

The goal of education isn't so that the masses can think. But rather, it is so that they will have the ability to see how they are wrong, when a true thinker comes along and points it out to them
~~~
When you put someone off or offend them or otherwise alienate them, they will simply stop talking to you. No explanation given, no more communication. That's it, you are out of their life. The concept of talking it out and giving someone a second chance is a very recent phenomenon. It hasn't been with us throughout our evolution as a species. Life does not give second chances. We should keep this in mind, and be very careful in our dealings with other people. If you make a mistake, very often it cannot be undone, and you lose that person forever. So be very careful.
~~~
Have you ever had that feeling of being extremely mad, but you don't know who to get angry at?
~~~
Hate is a normal human emotion. Don't just accuse people of hating. Don't just judge them for hating. Instead, ask them why they hate. Their answer might make you think.

2026-07-15 22:47:54 UTC

The Japanese indeed sound like really upright, honorable people. Who knew they could have done all those terrible things to the Chinese in the WW2? I still remember the story of a girl who was gang-raped by Japanese soldiers. She lost her marbles. I saw a picture of her face, too.
Have any of you heard about the book, Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang? It chronicles the atrocities committed by the Japanese against Chinese civilians during the war. I don't know if this book is still around, they probably scrubbed it clean just they did with a lot of things. The author of the book, Iris Chang, committed "suicide". She was probably driven to suicide by the FBI at the behest of the Japanese government. The Japanese do not want white people to know that they are deep down not much better than animals. They want westerners to continue to want to marry and breed with their women. The Japanese emperor still hasn't apologized to countries that their armies brutalized during the WW2. He is probably hoping that if he will just wait, all the eye-witnesses will die of old age.

2026-07-15 22:45:29 UTC

I move that we make it necessary for would-be voters to pass a test in order to be eligible to vote. Even though I believe that voting is a right, I don't think we should let just about anybody over the age of 18 vote. There needs to be a system in place to make sure that only the politically literate can vote. It's kind of like passing tests to get a driver's license. Yes driving is a right, however that doesn't mean we should just let anybody drive. We need to make sure they are competent drivers, so that they don't cause accidents. Similarly we don't want politically illiterate people to choose our nation's leader, as this can have serious consequences.
The test: there will be two sections. In the first section, people are tested on their ability to think for themselves. A few examples: people will be given sentences and short speeches, and be asked to identify what's wrong with the sentences. They need to be able to figure out what logical fallacy is present. People will also get tested on whether they can pick out instances of spin-doctoring (as in, the act of putting a spin on things). Critical thinking skills will be tested. This section will not be structured in a way to test for specific knowledge, but rather, it will be in a general way that tries to see if the test-taker has the ability to see through lies, to see through spins, to detect sophistry, to detect arguments that appeal to the emotion rather than the mind, to think critically, and to be able to identify cases where such attempts are made to fool them. In the second section, political knowledge is tested. People are asked about general knowledge about national and or world events, be tested on who the leaders are in key countries, what's going on in the news, and things of that nature. The purpose of this section is to weed out those who are politically apathetic. I operate on the assumption that people who bother to pay attention to politically related news care about politics. It's not a perfect measure but it's good enough. Not only do we not want people who can't think to vote, we also don't want those who do not care about politics to vote, either.

2026-07-15 22:44:48 UTC

The best kind of writing is the kind that creates a connection between you and the reader. It is not a piece that you have crammed a lot of big words into. I can honestly tell you, people do not think, "Wow, this author has certainly used a lot of words that I don't understand. I better be persuaded by him!" When you write, you need to know who you are writing to and what your goal is. In our case, we are writing to the general public, and our goal is to convert them to our side. You need to write in a way that your audience can understand, and using a lot of big words is counterproductive to that end. When people read something, they want their experience to effortless and flowing. Peppering your writing with big words makes your piece very unpleasant to read. When people come across a word they don't know, either they skip it, or they have to look it up in a dictionary. The latter is called studying, and nobody likes to do that. There are so many other media out there that compete with us for people's attention, media that are much more entertaining. What's stopping people from closing your webpage and then turning on the TV or watching a clip on youtube? My point is, we have a lot of competition for people' attention. If you make your writing boring or otherwise unpleasant to read, people will simply not read it. Then we lose readers. So heed my words, do not make your writing difficult to read by using a lot of big words. It serves absolutely no purpose. Remember: Simple is beautiful. Another really dumb thing is to make your writing really long. Some people pad their writing and really drag it out, thinking that it will make it good. It won't. The best writing is one that involves the least number of words. It's very similar to golfing. In golf, the best player is the one that uses the least number of strokes to get the ball into the hole. It's not the one with the most strokes. Writing is the same. The author who wins is the one who can get his point across by using as few words as possible. In fact, I would say that apart from technical textbooks and novels, most books that currently exist are unnecessarily long. I bet a lot of times you could easily pare it down to half and still retain the author's key message. While we are on the subject of books, I just want to point out that not every book is worth reading. Similar to how in real life, not everybody who can speak has something insightful to say, it's the same with books. Some books are simply not worth your time. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that someone who can write a book must have important ideas that you should pay attention to. A lot of authors are just educated morons, whose only ability is that they can put words on paper. So, when you come across a book, exercise your judgment and don't automatically assume it has wisdom in it. I mean, you wouldn't listen to just anybody talk, right? It's the same thing with books.
We want to hook people with our writing and one thing to achieve that is to make it as smooth and flowing as possible. So don't stress out thinking that you have to memorize an entire dictionary to be an effective communicator. Speaking of which, I just want to emphasize that we are not true writers in the sense that we don't make our living as a writer. What we are is a communicator. We are communicating ideas to our readers. And it is because of this, I say that we don't have to be creative, or innovative, or have to come up with fresh imageries, similes, metaphors..etc. If there is a well-worn phrase, however it works extremely well to capture your meaning, and people are familiar with this expression, then you should use it. Our goal is to get the things in our brain to other people's brains. We are not here to impress them with what fantastic writers we are. So no need to get creative.
Another tip for the would-be communicator: To save time and effort, you can completely ignore the language of fields that aren't relevant to your purpose. For example, I do not put in any effort whatsoever into learning the language used in sports and skincare. It's because these fields have nothing to do with politics. The kind of message I want to send uses very few words from these two fields, so I cut them out so as to save time. There are literally thousands of fields out there, it's not possible to be familiar with all of them, so, in order to be efficient, you have to know what to ignore, otherwise you would get bogged down. When I try to improve my English by reading a book, I only bother with subjects that I think will help me. This allows me to cut out all the noise, all the unnecessary stuff. It saves me a tremendous amount of time.

2026-07-15 22:44:11 UTC

Some random thoughts:
If we have people starving on the streets or senior citizens having to skimp on food in order to afford medicines while there are multi-billionaires drinking champagne out of diamond-encrusted glasses on a yacht, then there is something seriously wrong with the way we organize our society. Especially in regards to how resources like money are divided among us.
If there is one bit of advice I can give to white people, it is this: do not be so trusting. Always be a little suspicious when you deal with someone, especially when that person is someone you don't know very well. And this especially applies to your government, which is all made up with people you don't know. I am telling you to do this not because I like to make things difficult for myself (I am someone you don't know either, so you should also be a little suspicious of me); but rather, it's because this is what's truly good for you.
We should pay attention to the physical attractiveness of our would-be children. Not because physical attractiveness can advance society like intelligence can, but rather, because it's good for the child's happiness. It should not all be about what our children can do for our society; it's also about them having some semblance of a happy life. It is cruel to deliberately give birth to an ugly child when you can help it. An ugly child will most likely go through life being picked on and bullied. We should avoid this whenever we can.
Imagine that I am an employer interviewing applicants. One applicant has angelic blue eyes and a gorgeous smile, and the other is an ethnic with a dark, ugly face. Guess who I am gonna hire? I guess this fits the definition of what a lefty would call racism, but to me there is nothing bad or malicious going on in my mind at all. I'm just doing what comes to me naturally. In fact it comes to all humans naturally, and that is to give a good-looking human preferential treatment. Lefties don't like this when it happens in a racial context, but it's simply just a natural human instinct. Besides, if I don't want to be fair in my hiring decisions, that is none of a lefty's or the government's business. I don't owe anybody a job. I am under no obligation to be fair to anybody. I will hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want. If I want to be "unfair", then guess what? That's my freedom. If the government tries to use its coercive power to force me to hire who I don't want to hire, I will tell it to fuck right off.
Banks now have to report deposits of cash that is over 10k. But, there are secret bank accounts in Swiss banks where autocrats of the world stash hundreds of millions of dollars. This is messed up. Governments try hard to catch a common criminal but they leave the true criminals alone. You might think governments are being stupid, but the truth is different. The truth is that the people at the top of our very own governments probably also have huge amounts of money stashed away in secret Swiss bank accounts themselves. In fact, if you try and advocate for laws that would require people to declare how much cash they have with foreign banks, the minute you start making any kind of headway is when you will start getting threats. And if you keep soldiering on, you might even be murdered.
Some people are stupid enough to believe that their unhappiness actually means something to the government. They believe that if they say they are unhappy enough times, the government will listen and there will be changes in policies. The only time that that seems to work is when the government has already made up its mind about what it will do, and if your complaint happens to be in the same direction, it will use it as the reason for their policy. This gives people the illusion that their government listens to them.
A lot of people from third-world countries like to say that their country is a shithole because they were colonized by white people. The reason they say this is not because it's true, but rather, it's because they need it to be true. Yes it's true that white people colonized a lot of places and were the aggressors. However, part of the reason they were able to colonize our countries in the first place is because we were easy targets. Some of us are extraordinarily stupid compared to white people. Some of us are undisciplined. Some can't fight. Some can't strategize. So, we are shit so we got colonized. It is not that we got colonized so now we are shit.
Politicians love being generous with other peoples money. They give our tax money away, often to foreign countries and they get called a humanitarian. Meanwhile, some of us yell at the rest to keep working hard to make money for politicians to spend and give away. They don't think there is anything wrong with the picture I painted. These people apparently don't know what the word "chump" means.

2026-07-15 22:41:09 UTC

Michael Collins Piper's death is suspicious. Who was this person, you might ask? Well, he wrote a book called Final Judgment, where he showed that Israel's Mossad, the CIA and organized crime were responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. It's apparently an underground best-seller, with 30,000 copies in circulation.
He was relatively young when he died, at the age of 54. Most people in the West live longer than that, unless they are quite unhealthy. Of course, I don't know Mr. Piper personally so I can't say anything about his health. Maybe he truly had a very unhealthy lifestyle, maybe, but dying at the age of 54 is a bit suspicious to me. I am not saying the feds under the instruction of their J*w bosses killed him. But I am not saying no, either. And no, please don't quote his Wikipedia entry to try and explain away his death. The information that is fit for public consumption typically has been greatly sanitized and has a tendency to give a benign explanation for everything. So, be a little paranoid and wonder if foul play is involved.
I have found this excellent link in which he summarized his book: https://www.afrocubaweb.com/news/mossadjfk.htm It's completely free and gives you a totally new perspective on JFK's assassination. So check it out and let me know what you think. Note: Once you read it, you will also come to the thinking that his death might not be all that we are led to believe.

2026-07-15 22:40:26 UTC

what are some ways a person can tell if they are the victim of targeted individuals, electronic harassment and gangstalking?
By Jason Singltons,
This is what I've found for you. If any of these techniques are being used then you are a victim of this organized harrasment
Harassment techniques include:
1. Surveillance (being followed, electronic surveillance, computer and phone hacking, monitoring all online activities, and bugging of home)
2.Profiles are built to identify any and all weaknesses and insecurities to be used later. Information often obtained through sexual partners or trusted people in their lives.
3.Conditioning where victims are sensitised to certain stimuli such as everywhere you go someone will cough as they walk past you. The goal is to make you self police and then think anyone who coughs is involved in the harassment. People report of conditioning to include hand gestures, an overt use of colour in peoples clothing (like everyone you see wearing red) or cars a certain colour or with headlights on (also known as brighting).
4. Anchoring where someone will provide false rationales for the harassment. Often many possible ationales are planted to keep the victim confused and the focus of the harassment cycles from one possible reason to another round and around so as to keep the victim guessing in a self perpetuating guessing game where every scenario you are to blame and causes self doubt, fear, intimidation, and ultimately a cycle of destructive thoughts
5. Mobbing (or true gangstalking) where everywhere you go you will see an overt display of people following you and often use words you have been conditioned to or your name to draw your attention
6. Street theatre where a group will "perform" an overt activity like a fake confrontation or scenarios designed to test your reactions. Often takes the form of a couple who position themselves near you and then have a conversation using many of your conditioned words or pertaining to your particular situation and sensitivities.
7.The use of directional speakers which have the ability to direct sound to a single individual in a crowded room. This particular item is ultimately the most used and is often referred to as V2K or Voice to Skull and is used extensively in the psychological breakdown of the victim. The use initially is to cause the victim to doubt their sanity and drive them into the mental health system, and later to just torment and never give the victim a moment of privacy or peace. If they do enter the mental health system, then harassment escalates dramatically as the victim has now been "discredited" and can be labeled as someone with a mental problem if they do speak out about the harassment.
8.The use of electronics to effect your eyesight and balance which was originally developed for the military and police crowd control called "dazzling" and even the ability to make you vomit.
9. Sound campaigns which is a community harassment technique where abnormal levels of sound are directed at the victim and their home. This includes cars deliberately breaking or accelerating when they pass, people talking excessively loudly at all hours of the night, amplification of sound using directional speakers so that external sounds that previously couldnt be heard now can, garbage trucks and other heavy vehicles, and countless other deliberate tactics.
10.Sleep deprivation - this is perhaps one of the most insidious tactics used where victims are woken multiple times a night and can be kept awake for days at a time. The effects are dramatic and completely debilitating effecting concentration, mood, irritability, appearance, and significantly impacts all areas of their life - job performance, relationships, and significantly aids in discrediting the victim as they appear unorganised, disheveled, and sleeping patterns alter so they may sleep during the day (where noise campaigns are more effective) and be awake at night (where they can be painted as the one making noise and being a disruptive member of the community).
11. Baiting or entrapment where victims are harassed to the point that they lash out and commit a crime such as assault, break and enter or vandalism, as they try and locate the source of the harassment. Harassers will actively try to provoke verbal and physical confrontations especially after a period of sleep deprivation. Or they are prompted into an activity which can then be used as leverage such as affairs, sexuality, drug use, or other criminal activity.
12. Gaslighting which is a form of psychological abuse where someone will actively try undermine victims and to make them doubt themselves so that they lose all self confidence and self esteem and are therefor easier to manipulate and push toward the mental health pathway. It can be as simlpe as being told something which they then deny, then telling them how silly they are for thinking they said it, and turn the lie around into an attack on the person. It can be incredibly effective coming from a trusted person and before the victim understands what is happening to them.
13.Blackbag jobs is a term when a harasser breaks into a victims property and places something or deliberately moves something. The purpose is to cause self doubt, and fear that their property is being accessed which harassers try to then sell as paranoia.
14. Propaganda and disinformation is also the other key element to suppress knowledge of this practice as its effectiveness initially requires the victim to be unaware of the existence of gangstalking, gaslighting, or the electronic technologies such as directional speakers so huge amounts of time are devoted online to creating disinformation sites which attempt to discredit victims by pushing the mental health agenda. They achieve this by posing as victims and actively trying to sound crazy so that all victims are treated as such. Also by creating websites claiming to help victims and being a resource for victims to come together and then harassing them to the extent that they lose hope and no longer reach out for help causing further isolation.
15. Further to the above, gangstalkers rely on disbelief and discrediting and as such much of the harassment is designed (at least initially) to mimic mental health issues. They also rely on their abuse being so extreme, so pervasive, so fundamentally immoral, as to be disbelieved and victims subsequently resort to photographing, videotaping, and sound recording their everyday encounters to disprove the countless unfounded claims made against them - especially in relation to gaslighting, which gangstalkers try to turn around and paint the victims as paranoid or irrational. Victims are made to feel helpless as every attempt to defend themselves is used against them and when they seek help they are met with disbelief or open hostility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The target of gang-stalking cannot talk to anyone because the family and or friends think you are having a mental breakdown. So you dont talk to anyone about this. There is no one who understands that this is real. In doing so, the gangstalkers make the victim feel isolated and helpless. The goal is to have the victim commit suicide or be locked up in jail prison or mental hospital.

2026-07-15 22:35:37 UTC

gang stalking.
First you get put under covert surveillance, and constantly watched and monitored for months up to years even. Then once the perpetrators AKA gangstalkers feel comfortable in knowing your patterns and life routines they begin the tortures. They slowly start letting you know they're around. They start trying to decimate your life in every single possible way imaginable. They attack you emotionally, physically, mentally, spiritually. Their whole goal is to eradicate you anyway possible. In the end after months and months sometimes years of the worst possible life they can make you live they shoot for suicide. And if suicide don't happen they'll push for getting you arrested for some sort of sex crime, rather being framed for it or even forced to do it. They want you in prison for a sex crime so you will get treated in the worst possible way. They will try to make money off of you anyway possible. They will send honey pots with diseases to try to sleep with you. They will send people into where you work to harass you. They will put stuff in your food at restaurants. They will break into your home put stuff in your water supply, put stuff in your food. they'll do stuff to your toothbrush. The things they do is just unimaginable. And remember all this will be streamed over the dark web as they do it to you. People can subscribe to a channel set up just for you and watch as they torture you daily. it's a sick world. There's much much more all I can really do is urge you to do your research. It is a very real thing and it really happens to thousands of people across the nation. And the most important thing to remember is 100% of all mass shootings are connected to GangStalking. Remember the kid that busted into the movie theater while Batman was playing and shot up the whole theater? Remember him? Gang stalking! There's so many cases out there you just wouldn't believe it. Once again I urge you, do your research.

2026-07-15 22:31:36 UTC

I think that for the vast majority of us, the best thing we can do for our world is to shut our mouths, and listen more. Nobody needs to be hearing what we have to say. All that talk about "expressing yourself" is actually very bad for our society, because it would only lead to the stupid making a lot of noise, which would drown out the voice of the wise. We need most people to shut up, so that true thinkers' voices can be heard. There is a very, very good chance that we have nothing of value to say anyway.

2026-07-15 22:29:13 UTC

A key characteristic of good people is that they benefit others, often at a cost to themselves. For example, let's say there is a very poor woman. She cannot find a job to support herself, so she has to become a prostitute, just to survive. Nearby a man with a kind heart, knowing her plight, offers to give her money to live on, so that she will not have to turn to such a degrading profession. So essentially this good man is incurring a cost to himself, just to help others, all without much tangible benefit to himself. Now contrast this with a bad person. A bad person doesn't care about others, nor about helping them. He doesn't give money to this poor woman, so, the end result is that he ends up with more money than the good man does. This gives the bad man an edge. Now I am not saying that by giving some money to someone else will make or break someone's fortune. But what we can't deny is the principle that bad people always seem to have an edge over the good. And since good people tend to do other good deeds, this really adds up, and the end result is that bad people will eventually win out against the good, everything else bein equal. We need to realize that being a good person is energetically expensive, compared to being a bad person. Which brings me to my next point. I feel that Christianity is a religion that is meant to preserve good people, and give them a fighting chance over bad people. I had previously thought that the gospel was just about making people believe in Jesus Christ, it was only now that I realize that it is the good news that good people bring to other good people that there is a way to triumph over bad people. It feels as though Jesus realized what I described above, and came up with a way for good people to outbreed the bad, or at least to not be outbred by the bad.
Christianity does this by teaching its followers, who tend to be good people, to band together with one another, help one another out, to marry one another, and then have many children. This does not cause bad people and their bad genes to go away, but at least it maintains the good people's good genes in the gene pool. It doesn't improve the gene pool, but it stops it from becoming worse. Without Christianity, evil bad people and their evil genes would have won out a long time ago. (In fact, the advent of Christianity, how it grew, and how it preserved the Europeans for centuries should make a very fine topic for gene-culture co-evolution, a new field of study in biology.) Of course, Christianity started 2000 years ago. Times are different now, we have a diversity of people from all corners of earth, and we understand so many things that our ancestors didn't understand 2000 years ago, so it is not realistic to expect everybody to follow Christianity anymore. Instead, we have a very powerful tool that can preserve good people like what Christianity has done for thousands of years, and that is genetic engineering. Now its in theory possible to find out which genes are responsible for good, ethical behaviors. And if we don't have this knowledge yet, sooner or later we will. Then it's only a matter of us outlawing the genes responsible for evil, selfish, harmful, unethical behaviors. The technology is either already here, or will be here very soon. Another thing we should note, is that we will also be able to designate certain racial groups as naturally more inclined to evil. There is nothing impossible about this, we are only against this idea for political or ideological reasons. We don't want to believe that some races can be naturally evil. We are scared that this might lead to genocide. But this is self-censorship, it is a hurdle to truth. The truth is, there is absolutely nothing impossible about certain people being more inclined towards evil, because evil, just like so many other human traits, is hereditary. Much like beautiful mothers will give birth to beautiful daughters, or brave fathers will give rise to brave sons, evil people give birth to evil children. Once you get past your anxiety and moral panicking, you will see that what I just described is totally possible. Also, you might say, what about the influence of the environment? Perhaps you think it's possible for naturally evil people to not manifest as evil. I don't want to get into a huge debate about nature versus nurture, however I just want to say that most of us are sane enough to create the kind of environment where evil, harmful behaviors are discouraged. However, we don't do anything on the gene front. We still let evil, bad people pass on their genes. Now imagine we try to do something about this, such that evil genes really go down in frequency. And then we combine this with an environment that discourages evil. What will happen is we will end up with very, very few, almost zero, instances of the evil, the bad, the harmful, the selfish, the cruel...etc etc manifesting themselves.

2026-07-15 22:27:36 UTC

I am sure that some have wondered about how white people's physical looks, such as blond/red hair, and green/blue eyes, have evolved. Some scientists speculate that white people have developed pale skin so as to let in more sunlight, to make vitamin D, and these hair/eye colors come with pale skin. But I disagree.
I believe that these traits evolved, because white people's ancestors needed to have attractive physical looks in order to survive. I am sure we all know that people treat other people differently based on how they look and that better looking people get better treatment. It's the same principle back on Mount Caucasus. It was an extremely harsh environment, and people needed help from others in order to survive. Help in hunting, or help in caring for one's offspring...etc. And by having blond/red hair, blue/green eyes, and therefore being more attractive, it increased the odds of survival, because people were more willing to help those who were better looking. This had an enormous survival advantage. The same mechanism is also what's responsible for white people's better looks in general. Good looks, as in, more attractive, refined, facial features, work just like blond/red hair, blue/green eyes, in that they draw people in. They make people like the person better, and they are more willing to help him/her. Such a person would enjoy greater fitness compared to another person who is less attractive.
Also, parents also tend to favor fairer looking offspring. Have we heard of the term, "Fair-haired child"? It means a favored child. And this makes sense. Blond hair is attractive, therefore the blond and more attractive child will receive more attention, food, love, protection....etc and just more resources in general. This helped them survive better.
Another thing I want to touch on, and it is the concept of positive selection, versus negative selection. In layman's term and very roughly speaking, positive selection is when a trait (could be physical, or it could be mental) has positive survival value, and it helps the person who has this trait survive better and leave behind more children. Now, negative selection is when a trait isn't really advantageous in any way, however its rival traits have negative survival value, and as such, these rival traits get removed, the genes responsible for them are removed from the gene pool, leaving behind only the trait that is negatively selected behind. An example of a trait that positive selection would select for, is intelligence. An example of a trait that a negative selection would select for, is blond hair. Blond hair does not really have much survival value, I mean, blond hair doesn't really do much for the person who has it. However, back in the kind of environment where the blond hair trait evolved, the conditions were such that its rival trait, such a black hair, was selected against and removed from the gene pool. This then left behind the blond hair trait and that genes that go with it. This is an instance of negative selection.

2026-07-15 22:26:26 UTC

I have been thinking about sexual selection versus natural selection. We all know that species evolve through these two mechanisms. Today I want to talk about how these apply to humans, more specifically white people. I feel that sexual selection couldn't have been the driving force behind a lot of the positive traits white people exhibit, because women, when they have the ability to freely choose their sexual partners, are very poor judges of what are good traits, and what are bad traits for civilization. I mean, look at what women choose. A lot of them choose basketball stars, egotistical, arrogant, obnoxious men, men with anti-social behaviors, men with the Dark Triad traits...etc, and men with good qualities tend to be overlooked. My point is, in order for sexual selection to work, as in, in order for women to choose and make babies with men such that civilizations can be created and maintained, it requires that they possess the ability to see these desirable qualities or traits in men. In other words, women have to have discernment in some way. And this is when a new question arises: What would cause women to be able to see these desirable traits in men in the first place? And this is why I feel sexual selection is not a good explanation, because we would have one more thing that we would have to explain. Given that the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation, this (sexual selection) is probably not it. So, I turn to the other explanation: Natural selection. I maintain that the reason white people are able to build impressive civilizations is due to natural selection acting upon and improving their gene pools, not sexual selection. Natural selection doesn't depend on having discerning females to work. It works by having a people evolve in harsh environments that culled the weak, the undesirable, the stupid, the undisciplined, the un-conscientious, and generally people with "bad" genes, from the gene pool. In other words, those who were unfit, were killed, and their genes removed. Those that survived, tended to be in possession of good genes that are compatible with the building and maintaining of civilizations. In fact, I would say that sexual selection in the natural world can sometimes lead to bad things. Think peacocks. The females of the species love the long, colorful tails of the males a lot. They have selected for the tail to be so long, that it makes it hard for the birds to escape predators. This is an example of sexual selection running amok, and how it has harmful effects on the population (the proper term is runaway sexual selection). Conversely, sexual selection could also be similarly bad in humans. Just look at the types of men women in sexually liberated countries naturally gravitate towards. Women don't seem to gravitate towards smart, hard-working, conscientious, brave, humble men who have integrity and foresight. Instead women tend to love mating with unsavory men with bad character. Hence, sexual selection in humans is quite possibly also bad.
A related thing I want to mention, is patriarchy. Feminists like to scream it's bad, but I disagree. Patriarchy is good in the sense that women don't have complete and total freedom to choose their sexual partners to their heart's desire. As I have shown above, giving women complete freedom in sexual matters can be downright disastrous for civilizations. Instead, under patriarchy, female sexuality is constrained to a significant degree, and a woman's family, especially her father, does most of the choosing for her. He will likely look for signs that the would-be son-in-law has good character, is dependable and honest, and is capable of providing for his daughter's children. And it just so happens that men who fit these criteria tend to be better at running a society, compared to more irresponsible men with unsavory traits. Also, another thing about patriarchy is that one man has one wife, and most men, as long as they are "good" men, are able to find a wife to have babies and pass on their genes. In other words, one man has babies with one woman. So from generation to generation, the gene pool of the population stays more or less constant. Whereas compared this to what we currently have in sexually liberated societies, where in theory the species' genetic landscape can be changed in just a few short generations, often for the worse, by many women having babies with relatively few men. Therefore, patriarchy does not improve the gene pool, however it stops it from becoming worse. It does this by keeping the gene pool relatively constant from generation to generation.

2026-07-15 22:25:39 UTC

My Guess On How Depression Evolved
We all know that depression is a major disorder of the mind, yet it's quite prevalent. Many theories have been proposed to explain how such an apparently maladaptive trait could have evolved and become so widespread. And I have my own theory:
Depression evolved because while it's bad for the individual, it is good for the group. Think back to how our ancestors evolved. Depression typically happened when an individual experienced something bad that reduced his fitness, for example, a man lost a limb (something that reduced his fitness) when hunting for an animal, and he became depressed. Or when a child was born with disfigurement of her face (a reduction of their fitness), she would also become depressed. Regardless of whether the unfortunate events that befell them were genetic or acquired, the consequence of these events is that it made it much more difficult for the people to reproduce. For example, it would cost the forementioned man who lost a limb, or the child with the disfigured face much more resources to have babies due to the fact their conditions would make them a lot less attractive to mates. This would happen to such an extent that it would be better if they had refrained from reproducing and just left more resources for healthy individuals. Now, this is a tricky thing for nature to do. Very few organisms will give up resources like food and mates without a fight. And this is where depression comes in-- it acts to psychologically depress the afflicted individuals and suppress their normal drives. This frees up valuable resources for people who stand a better chance of reproduction. It also puts the afflicted in such a funk that they can't physically act out their anger at their lot. Imagine the following: The aforementioned unlucky individuals' depressed states caused them to eat less, which means their group would have less competition for food, a valuable resource. They would also lose the motivation to do anything, which means they would not take their anger or resentment out on their group or otherwise do anything to disrupt their social group. They also withdrew from sex, which means healthy individuals would get more mates, and it also means fewer fights between the depressed and other group members for mates, which contributed to the stability of the group. So, depression evolved because it prevented organisms that have been struck down by life from threatening the survival of the group. In fact, when you examine the various aspects of depression, you will see that almost all of them have a social component.
We can actually see a modern-day example of the benefit of depression. We all know the phenomenon of a "loser", who is usually male. Such a male typically has inferior genetics, and he cannot secure a mate. So, he has reduced fitness. Nature has selected for such men to experience depression, because if they aren't depressed, and instead exhibit anger that is very frequently seen with men, they could very well walk into a crowded shopping mall with a gun and start shooting people. Depression would cause these men to become too sad to do anything, and this would preserve the group. Of course, I gave an example involving guns and shopping malls because that's what we are familiar with. In our evolutionary past, these things didn't exist, so just imagine that a man with reduced fitness but without depression might, say, pick fights with others very frequently, or otherwise engage in disruptive behaviors that threatened the survival of his group.
There is a way to see whether my theory is correct, and it is by observing the incidences of depression in different human groups. I think that groups that evolved in harsher climates, such as Europeans and East Asians, should be predicted to have higher rates of depression, compared to races that evolved in less harsh environments, where stability of the group wasn't as important, such as Negroes.
Another thing to note: What we today know as depression, probably did not exist back then. What likely existed, was depressed psychological states. In other words, people felt kind of "blue", but not full-blown depressed like the depression patients we know today. Why? Well, actual, full-blown depression is very debilitating, not just for the sufferer but those around her as well. So, back in the our evolutionary past, a bona-fide depressed individual would likely "drag" her kin down with her illness. But if she was merely feeling kind of blue, then it wasn't bad enough to drag anybody around her down, but enough to make her not have the energy to do anything or to compete for resources. So, genes responsible for these semi-depressed mental states flourished. Then, as time went on, these genes spread. Different people in the population carry copies of these genes that encode for this state of "I feel kind of blue" to various degrees. When two people who both happen to possess genes that encode for very high levels of this kind of semi- depressed-ness come together and have a child, depression as we know today, happens. It's similar to the phenomenon of physical beauty. We have all heard of stories of women so beautiful, that they drove men to all kinds of insane and harmful behavior, for example, a woman is so beautiful that men would risk jail-time so they could rape her, or men going to war over a beautiful woman (the story of Helen of Troy was probably inspired by a real-life event). I believe that such extreme levels of beauty evolved by the same mechanism. Back in our past, nature probably did not straight up select for such an extreme level of beauty, as it would be bad for the group. By that I mean, if a woman was excessively beautiful, she might cause men around her to not want to eat, not want to hunt, and just want to sit around all day thinking about her. This would be bad for the group. But women who were kind of beautiful did exist, and they passed on their genes, which encoded for a middling amount of physical beauty. Then, as time went on, people branched out from these sort-of beautiful women ancestors. They possessed genes for various levels of beauty. When two individuals who both happen to possess genes that encode for a rather high amount of beauty, we get women who are insanely beautiful. So, I hope this illustrates the point that depression was not directly selected for by evolution, as it was a diseased state. But genes that encode for lower levels of this diseased state did exist and their bearers prospered.

2026-07-15 22:24:46 UTC

Some people like to say how humans are genetically 99.9% similar, therefore we should all love one another. What this really means, is that that we should especially love humans of a different race, as we are not that different. However, let me tell you why this line of thinking is wrong. It doesn't matter how similar we are, because what really counts are our differences. For example, I am pretty sure you also share 99.9% of your genes with a convicted murderer. But would you want your sister to marry such a person? Remember, he shares 99.9% of his genes with you! So that's enough reason to love and accept him as a member of your family, right? No, I am sure you would not love or accept him, nor would you want your sister to marry him. And it's because it doesn't matter how much similarity he has with you, the things about him that set him apart from you ( his criminality and bloody past) override everything else. This illustrates my principle that it is the differences that count.
Furthermore, drawing the line at 99.9% is arbitrary. Because, why not draw the line at 98%? 98 is still a pretty high number. If we are going to get all "loved out", we might as well start loving other primates. In fact, why stop at 98? Why not extend the circle of love to 97, 96, 95, and all the way down to 50, which means we would have to start loving amoebas and ring-worms. There really is no difference between genetic similarities of 99.9 versus 50%. They differ only in degree, but not in kind. They are fundamentally the same thing, both are numbers drawn up arbitrarily. I hope this exaggerated example shows how stupid it is when people (usually lefties) say we should love one another because we are so similar genetically.

2026-07-15 22:22:23 UTC

You can sometimes get people to not break laws, but you cant make them care. By that I mean, you cannot make people feel the emotions that would stop a normal person from not breaking a law in the first place. For example, we have laws against murder. When we have these laws, we can sort of prevent people from committing murder. But the ideal way, which is also the normal way, is for people to be born with a conscience that tells them that murder is wrong. This, is the most effective way of preventing murder. When compared to the conscience, laws are very, very ineffective. This is why when we look at third-world countries and can't help but marvel at their lawlessness. The more naive and stupid among us might suggest that they pass laws so as to make their societies less lawless. No, these laws wouldn't do much. These third-world people's lawlessness is the result of their psychological makeup. It is not the cause of it.

2026-07-15 22:21:19 UTC

I remember watching this video, where a small white girl just got a dog. She was so overjoyed that she started crying. We can infer from her behavior what was going on in her brain. She must have felt an incredibly strong surge of emotions. Now, a lot of kids like animals, both white ones and non-white ones, this isn't unusual. What's unusual is that the white girl liked an animal so much that it caused her to cry. There must be something going on in her brain that is different from what goes on in a typical non-white child's brain when they both have just gotten a dog. If I were to guess, the white girl's brain is either more sensitive than a non-white child's brain to neurotransmitters, or it releases more of them. I reach this conclusion from my observation of her ultra-intense reaction. White people's brains are very probably wired differently than non-whites', or they experience heightened sensitivity to neurotransmitters. I don't know exactly in what ways they differ, I am not a scientist, but I just know that they differ. We can't directly see what goes on in people's brain, but we can observe their behaviors and from there try to guess what's going on in their mind. Often times white people do things that appear excessive to a non-white, while others appear inexplicable, if not down right crazy. And that's because whites experience the world differently than non-whites do due to the differences in their brains. And it's not just about getting a dog, it extends to other areas, too.
I am reminded of this adult white woman I read about. So basically, one day, some kind person dropped off gift cards at the doorsteps of homes in her neighborhood. She got one, too. And she was moved to tears. She was literally crying and shaking, she couldn't believe there were people who were this kind. Again, this behavior can be seen as a bit excessive. Yeah, sure, someone anonymously giving you a gift card to brighten up your day is very wonderful indeed, but how about just quietly feeling grateful and appreciative in your heart? This is what a typical non-white would do, but not this white woman. The feelings she felt were so strong that she behaved in an excessive way. Again, from this, we can infer her brain state. And this is another example where white people behave very differently from non-whites, which gives us insight into what's going on in their brains. I want to clarify that I don't mean all white people will cry or behave this strongly in response to something. Rather, the white girl and white woman I mentioned are heightened examples meant to make a point. Typical white people probably don't have as strong of a reaction. But they still feel things much more deeply and intensely compared to other races due to differences in brains. Furthermore, neurological differences like this tend to persist throughout life.

2026-07-15 22:20:48 UTC

A very important thing about genetic engineering, is that people's love and respect will finally mean something. Imagine there is someone who is very kind, honorable, helpful, considerate, and just all around a stand-up guy. He loves to help people, often literally takes money out of his pocket to give to those in need. He is nice, friendly, generous, and he cares about people's feelings. He's just awesome. Before the age of genetic engineering, someone like him didn't enjoy too many tangible benefits. Sure, he might get invited to dinners or bars after work, people might throw him surprise birth parties, maybe rally around him when he needs help. The most that would happen is people might give him a job. He might get these nice things, but not much else. In other words, people's love and respect, though nice, aren't really worth any money. And this is acutely understood by someone who is only after money. He doesn't care to behave in a way that will win people's love and respect, because to him these things are worthless. He is hyper-aware that love, respect...etc won't give him material goods or riches. The end result? He is widely hated, but he owns half the town and is in a position to have lots of children, who will likely grow up to be money-hungry and detestable just like him. But now, things are different. We have tools for genetic engineering. People's love and respect for a kind person will still not be worth any money, however, they will now have true meaning. People will actively engineer human genes so that there will more people like the awesome guy I described above. Unpleasant people with their greedy, grubby, money-grabbing ways will, for the first time in human history, lose out to ungreedy, kind, nice, good people in a real, meaningful way. Because people will actively engineer their nasty genes out of the gene pool.

2026-07-15 22:20:00 UTC

I remember two stories that I read about in my language. Even though technically they were stories, however I believe they were inspired by actual events. Which means something similar probably actually happened in real life. Anyway, onto the stories. In the first story, there was a huge famine. People were starving. Now, there was a rich man who owned lots of land. He was able to produce food. So he stood by a gate to hand out food to people so they would not be hungry. Along came one person. The rich man saw him and said to him, "Hey, you, come eat". It's hard to describe, but basically he was addressing the person in a very disrespectful manner. So the person responded, saying, "I may be starving, however my pride will not let me be treated like this". And then he stood next to the food, not taking one bite, until he starved to death. The other story: there was a man who always kept his word. One day, he made a promise with someone to meet under a bridge. Suddenly, a flood came, threatening this man's life. But the person he was supposed to meet hadn't shown up yet. So he thought to himself, "I made a promise to him to meet him here; I will not go anywhere, not even if it means I will lose my life". Then the flood got really bad, the water level rose, and he drowned. Now, the takeaway of these stories isn't that if these two men had been more flexible, they would have lived. But rather, they showed that in hard times, people who are dignified or who have noble character, tend to die off easily. These people would not compromise on their noble qualities and in doing so, they tended to die, and their genes that encoded for these noble qualities became lost. There was an inflexibleness to them, making them much like the unyielding branch of a tree. Think of an unyielding branch of a tree. The more unyielding it is, the more easily it will snap off in a storm. Whereas people who easily compromise are like a pliable branch and as a result, it does not break easily. They just go with whatever. And as a result, they live and pass on their genes. So what does this tell us? It tells us that the more adversity a population faces, the more the noble people among them will die and their good genes will be lost.
In fact, consider the country China. The Chinese started out a very accomplished people. They made numerous contributions to science and literature....at the earlier periods. But, look at the state it is in today. Thievery, dishonesty, and corruption permeate all levels of their society. There are materialistic women everywhere who see nothing wrong with whoring out their bodies for money. Men rob, cheat, and steal, and then they become politicians. And this is because the Chinese people have gone through many, many hard times throughout their history, and many good people and their good genes have been culled. Which brings me to another point. China has seen many wars, because of its central location. It is situated in a place where a lot of military forces would have to go through, in order to conquer other peoples. These wars are another form of hard times, except that their effects on the Chinese gene pool are even more devastating. People with noble-ness in their character, those who were unyieldingly good, were removed from the gene pool at an even faster rate during times of war. This is why today's China is a far cry from the nation it was ages ago. Now, look at places like Japan, and the more remote parts of Europe like the Scandinavia, and western Europe. These countries and places are situated on the edges of the world, they are not in a central location that warring forces of the olden days would have to go through. Therefore, they were not subjected to wars too much, and this is one reason why their genes haven't deteriorated much. As a result, they become the advanced, prosperous, peaceful nations that we know today. Now, consider the Middle East, which is in an even more central location than China. Look at the current state of various middle eastern countries. We see violent, harsh, war-like people everywhere. This is due to the fact the entire Middle East has seen far too many wars, which had a devastating effect on the gene pool of people located in this general area. Imagine the many warlords that had either arisen in or gone through this area and who had raped many women, leaving behind their war-like, raping genes in large quantities (Genghis Khan comes to mind). Another thing to note: once the gene pool of a people becomes bad it will be on a downward spiral. It will get worse and ever worse. This process is irreversible, until the advent of genetic engineering. This technology has the potential to remove evil, bad people in a gene pool, in theory. I say "in theory", because a people will actually need to have the ability to realize what is good and what is bad. When a people have gotten to a really bad place, genetically speaking, very often the people at the top, the policy makers, fail to understand which traits to get rid of and which to keep, because one would actually have to have pretty good genes in order to have the ability to make good judgment like that. So basically, you would have to be not too shitty genetically in order to be able to use genetic technology to improve the gene pool successfully. In fact, very often the people who are at the top are the very ones who need to go, but I don't think there is a good chance they will voluntarily edit their own shitty genes out of the gene pool.

2026-07-15 22:19:25 UTC

I was arguing with someone about whether racism is morally wrong. I said that it isn't, and he said that it is. So I want to say something to settle it once and for all. Throughout most of white people's evolutionary history, they were isolated from other races. They only had contact with other whites. And since they didn't know about the existence of other races, racism couldn't have been a thing. If racism wasn't a thing, then the morality that racism is wrong, could not have not evolved, either. The reason for that, is it is impossible to evolve morality towards something one didn't even know existed. Therefore, not feeling that racism is wrong is natural. It is the normal, default state of being for white people. As such, people who claim that racism is wrong have to convince white people why racism should be wrong. White people don't need to prove anything to them.

2026-07-15 22:18:47 UTC

Hello. I think racial differences in behavior is a very interesting topic, however, it's never talked about publicly, which is another thing that is intriguing. You know what I am talking about, this overwhelming pressure in the air that says we must never notice racial differences, and if we do, we are evil racists who should burn in hell.
Anyway, I just think it's totally possible that there are behavioral differences among the races. My reasoning: Different races evolved in different environments, and as such, they faced different evolutionary pressures. As a result, they developed different traits in a lot of areas. This is so common sense that I think the real questions should be, "Who are these people that insist races are different in looks only and why do they believe this crap?"
I mean the races are very different in terms of looks. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that they might differ in other ways, too? I say that it is absolutely possible that they differ in other ways, for example, behavioral, cognitive, mental, and psychological...etc. We are just too scared to talk about it out in the open, is all. And this is purely political. It has nothing to do with science.
An anecdote: I am Asian, and I constantly talk to my girlfriends about the different ways white people act when compared to our people. More specifically we like to talk about the ways white guys tend to act when they are interested in you. We talk about this stuff because even though none of us is a sociologist or a biologist, we still easily notice that white guys act differently than Asian guys when they like you. And this is just one among the many ways the two races are different. I am sure in your social circle, you have also heard similar talks, too. You are just too scared to discuss it in public, and this is especially true if you are white.

2026-07-15 22:18:03 UTC

Very soon, we will have the ability to engineer our genes, if we don't have it already. I am sure such technology will be abused by billionaires who, despite their great wealth, are actually very stupid and unimaginative people. They will probably engineer something stupid like new hair colors, or increase memory capacities in human such that people can hold as much info in their heads as computers, or making people not poop anymore. And this is because most people don't understand what a truly meaningful, significant change in genes is. I will give you one example of a truly significant change: The genes for compassion. We take compassion for granted, because it has been around for a long time and a lot of people have it. So we don't think much of it. However, when it first showed up in humans, it was a huge leap. Imagine a group of rough, hard-hearted hunter gatherers who were barely above animals. Suddenly, there was a genetic mutation in one person, and that person had compassion, unlike anybody else. He wasn't just different from all that were living at the time, he was different from all the humans that had ever lived before him. In that time, the trait of compassion was revolutionary, it was absolutely unheard of, something completely new. And it was not just new, it changed human behavior in a fundamental way. It became one of the defining characteristics of Homo Sapiens. So, when we use technology to alter our genes, we should keep this in mind. We want something truly monumental, not something stupid like cosmetic changes or minor tweaks on already-existing traits. Another idea related to genetic engineering is transhumanism. By tinkering with the human genes, we will essentially be creating a new kind of humans. They will likely not be Homo Sapiens anymore. But before we start this process, there are a few things we have to contend with. Namely, in order to distinguish a transhuman from a regular human, we first have to ask ourselves what a Homo Sapiens is. What is a human? What defines a human? What makes a human human? If we merely engineer the genes such that the new human will have no sweat glands, but everything else is the same, is he still a human? And what about making him extraordinarily kind, or extraordinarily evil? Would both still be Homo Sapiens? So as you can see, to contemplate changing the human genes is to be confronted with the very nature of our existence as a species.

2026-07-15 22:16:13 UTC

Some have wondered how white people's intellectual capacities, achievements and various abilities have come to be. They seem quite "excessive", in the sense that they are not strictly needed for survival. Some speculate that these are due to runaway sexual selection, where females show great preference for males that exhibit those traits. I have an alternative explanation that does not involve female sexual preference. You see, back in the environment where white people's ancestors evolved, the conditions were very harsh, and they needed a lot of outstanding abilities and traits in order to survive. Intelligence, naturally, was very much needed. Long-term planning was needed. Social cohesion was needed, as people needed the cooperation and help from one another, in order to survive. As such, a whole host of traits that promoted social cohesion evolved, such as a trusting nature, and an innate desire for friendship. Hunters of that time needed to be able to orient themselves to the lay of the land, and to be able to memorize hunting routes, and thus, the ability to appreciate the beauty in the environment evolved, because this helped the early hunters to navigate the land better and to be able to find their way homes easier. The concept of the sanctity of life arose because it was important that people valued human life. Each human took resources to raise, and resources were very hard to come by and therefore precious. If people didn't value human lives and just killed people casually, it was very costly in terms of resources. I could go on, but the principle is that all these things that we currently see that seem to be extra and not strictly needed, were in fact needed back then. But now we live in a much milder, much more forgiving environment. However, these evolved traits do not simply go away, they are still with white people today. So what we see is that these now superfluous traits, manifest themselves as forces that make complex societies and eventually civilizations possible. Think about the traits I mentioned earlier. I will show you the role they play in our current world. Raw intelligence now does not help white people survive anymore but instead becomes the force by which they gain knowledge. It is the reason universities exist and why human knowledge is able to grow and grow, which helps improves people's quality of life in many ways. Long-term planning allows white people to anticipate events and this prevents problems before they happen. White people's trusting nature makes mega cities possible, because mega cities are full of strangers and without a trusting nature, people would be on guard all the time around strangers and society would grind to a halt. There are friendly feelings between white people because they have a desire for friendship, and this makes cooperation and then eventually collaboration on a grand scale possible. And we all know how useful large-scale collaboration is. And the clean, beautifully kept environments are only possible because white people have a appreciation for the beauty found in the natural world; they like things clean and orderly and pleasing to the eyes. This makes societies in the West a delight to live in. The sanctity of life translates into laws forbidding murder. This makes society peaceful and living with other people in close quarters possible. It gives people a sense of security that they are safe as they move about in the society. I could go on, but you get the idea. The thing to take away is that whatever used to help white people's ancestors survive is now no longer strictly necessary, but it remains with them nevertheless. And now it manifests itself as the force that makes world-class societies and amazing civilizations possible. And please don't think that the traits I mentioned above are the only important ones; there are a lot more traits that are just as important. I was just giving a few of the more obvious ones. In fact, as a fun thought exercise, challenge yourself to think of more traits that contribute to Western civilization, and I bet you can work backwards to their origin and see how they could have helped white people's ancestors survive on Mount Caucasus.

2026-07-15 22:15:25 UTC

Men are in a constant war with one another to compete for the chances to mate with women. Those of them who are "alphas", aka, the ones who have superior genetics and are highly attractive to women, get women easily. Those who possess inferior genetics are called betas. These men get few mating choices. Those of them who have the smarts and ambitions, run businesses to become rich, and this helps with their reproductive efforts somewhat. These betas know that with the genetics they are born with, they don't stand much chance of attracting attractive women. So they hope by having great wealth, they can impress these women. But the amount of money that can made by one man is typically quite limited, unless he's truly intelligent and inventive, which most men aren't. So these beta but smart men need to come up with ingenious ways to get more money than they could on their own, and one big way is by exploiting the labor of other men and women. In other words, they have to become capitalists and business owners and have other people work to make lots of money for them. Now, where do we average-looking women place in this scheme? We are not hot enough to be desired by these men, so, our natural place is to become one of their employees. We work to make these men rich, and in the process make enough to live on, and for those of us who are lucky, maybe enough to raise a family. But we will always be a cog in the economic machine and nothing more. The same is true for our male colleagues. They are neither hot enough to be alphas, nor are they smart enough to be business owners. So their role is to work for the rich men as well. I want the women reading this to realize how men see us. When we are attractive, they want our body. When we are not, they want our labor. This is the true state of the battle of the sexes, with a little bit of economics thrown in the mix.
A word about the role beauty plays in love: Love only exists among blood relatives. The only time it happens for someone who is unrelated is if she is extremely beautiful. By the way, truly unconditional love doesn't exist. People like to talk about it because it's idealistic, it's romantic. But it has nothing to do with reality. Even parents, who are supposed to love their children unconditionally, are largely motivated by cute looks. If babies didn't look as cute as they do, there would be a lot less parental care and love. Furthermore, I am sure we have all heard of the song that goes, "I learned the truth at 17, that love is meant for beauty queens". This captures truth really well. Romantic love exists only for beautiful people. If you are a plain Jane, men will never truly love you like they would a beautiful woman. They might still marry you, however it's only because they want free sex and hot meals.

2026-07-15 22:12:39 UTC

I am sure we have all heard of the platitude, "There are good and bad people in every race", or something similar, from a clueless, annoying liberal. Here the word race is used interchangeably with human groups. I want to point out how stupid this statement is. There are only a few races (or human groups) on earth, and there are billions of humans. Every race has hundreds of millions of people in it, if not more. Do you really think it's possible that there is absolutely not one good person out of hundreds of millions of humans? No, of course not. So saying that there are good and bad people in every race is so generic that it has no meaning. I think what's truly important, and this has something to do with what "evil racists" believe, is the proportion of bad people to the good, in a given race. Take, for example, the Chinese people, and the Swedish people. I say that there is a higher proportion of bad people in the first group, whereas there is a lower proportion in the second group. I don't have real numbers, so I will just assign some arbitrary numbers to illustrate my point to you. With the Chinese, let's say 9 out of 10 people are bad. With the Swedes, 1 out of 10 people are bad. So even though the statement "There are good and bad people in every race/human group" holds true for both populations, your experience of living among the Chinese will be vastly different from that of living among the Swedes. This is what's truly important, the ratio of bad to good people in a given race/human group.
I think this is an important concept to grasp. We have two groups of people who hold completely opposite views: liberals and "racists". Liberals believe that if they can find one minority who is a good person, then this means minorities are good people just like white people. Racists on the other hand believe that if they can find one minority who is a bad person, then it means minorities are bad people, unlike white people. I think both views are incomplete. The correct view is mine. It is meaningless to put forward a single specimen as if representative of the entire group. We have to realize that we are talking about groups of humans, and these number in the billions. When we have billions of something, we are talking about a statistical phenomenon. I will give an example of what that means. You take a Swede, and look at his eye color. He will either be blue-eyed, in which case, he is 100% blue-eyed, or he will have eyes that aren't blue, in which case, he is 100% not blue-eyed. He cannot be 30% blue-eyed. But, when you look at the entire Swedish population, then these numbers make sense. The Swedish population can certainly be, say, 30% blue-eyed. This is what I mean by statistical phenomenon. Every time we talk about race (or human groups), we have to keep this in mind. We need to realize that putting forth one or even a few specimens of something is not meaningful.
Another example is the tendency towards spirituality. If you say, "Man does not live by bread alone" to the Chinese people, almost no one will understand what you mean. You say this to white people, you will get some who get it. If you say it to Christians, almost all of them will know what you mean. So, this is another example of something being a statistical phenomenon. In our case, it is how spiritually inclined different human groups are. The few Chinese people who get it does not disprove that most of them don't.

2026-07-15 22:08:26 UTC

When people talk about racial differences, some people, aka liberals, act like we are saying white people are all saints and minorities are all children of the devil. literally nobody is saying that. We are just suggesting that different races, which evolved under different environmental conditions, could
means there are differences in not just what's on the outside but also possibly what's on the inside. The lefty position "all humans are completely the same on the inside" is too extreme. It's also wishful thinking. Not only that, they forbid us from questioning it, which technically makes it a dogma.

2026-07-15 22:05:39 UTC

You know, I have heard online many times when people say, "There is no "German Gene" anymore than there is a "French Gene" or a "Nigerian Gene".
That is a very stupid thing to say. Nobody is saying that the genetic differences between races are qualitative. The genes themselves differ only quantitatively. By that I mean, say in one group, a particular gene codes for a protein that is a shorter chain which folds 20 times, whereas in another group, the gene codes for the same protein except that it is longer and folds 40 times. This is a quantitative difference on the genetic level. Yet, on the phenotypic level (this means on the level of the actual, physical trait), the differences are seen as qualitative. The two proteins, though similar in structure and their amino acid sequence, will likely produce very different traits. These resultant differences can then be put in distinct categories. For example, blue versus brown eyes, blond versus black hair, a violent disposition versus a non-violent disposition...etc. And when we are talking about different human groupings, these distinct categories translate into a German versus a Frenchie vs. a Nigerian vs. a Chinese vs. an Indonesian...and so on and so forth.
I will give a real-world example. There is a species of moles that form life-long monogamous pairs. There is a related species that behave very differently, they don't form any long-lasting pairs. These behavioral differences are qualitative, as in, we can put them in two distinct groups, "faithful" vs "non-faithful". However, on the genetic level, the differences between them are merely quantitative. Both groups have a gene that codes for a protein that determines mating behavior. When the protein chain is shorter, it leads to promiscuous behavior. When longer, it produces monogamous behavior. Yet, just because the genetic differences between these two species of moles are only quantitative, (in these people's language we would say there is no such a thing as a faithful gene) nevertheless they produce behaviors that are different enough that we can put the two species in two totally distinct categories. So yes, technically they are correct that there is no "German" gene or "French" gene, however that doesn't mean categories like the Germans, the French, the Nigerians... etc etc are now meaningless.

2026-07-15 22:04:00 UTC

A thing about evil: evil can be explained in biological terms. Evil isn't just a concept found in religion. The very fact that evil as a concept exists is proof that there are evil people. People didn't sit down and say, "Hey, let's create a religion and then add the concept of evil to it". No. Evil humans came first, then religion came second. First there were evil people, and they became the inspiration for the devil in religions.

2026-07-15 21:36:01 UTC

I've been following the struggles of People's Party of Canada, an opposition party in Canada. even though i am happy it exists, nevertheless, it is not an ideal situation. i don't want it to be such that any time the people are not happy with their country is run, their only recourse is to start an alternative party. it's simply too time consuming and too difficult. It requires too much effort. there should be a better, easier way for people to change the course of their country, without needing strenuous efforts.
Another thing: it appears that the other parties have started to adopt some of the PPC's stances. this shows me that these parties have no real principles that they stand by. they are just going with whichever way the wind is blowing. but the sad thing is that the voters have zero ideas, and they truly think that these imposter parties who only know how to steal other people's ideas, are good parties with good ideas.

2026-07-15 21:35:38 UTC

Here, our government charges GST, which stands for goods and services tax. Every time we buy or sell something or eat out, we have to pay this tax. I understand that governments need to levy taxes, this is how they run their various services. I get that. However, they already make us pay income tax. So how can they tax us again? They are levying these taxes on top of our incomes which are already taxed. This is double taxation, is it not?

2026-07-15 21:34:19 UTC

I have read that politicians tend to be more financially irresponsible than the citizens that they rule, and one way this manifests is that they tend to rack up national debts. They do this because while the debt and the servicing of said debt is shared equally among all citizens, leaders nevertheless have the power to disproportionately reward their cronies using money from the debt. And they don't ever worry about how we as a nation are going to have to pay down the debt, because that is the problem for the next administration.

2026-07-15 21:33:23 UTC

Have you heard of this thing called "slush fund"? It's basically money set aside by an organization for illegal purposes, such as bribery. When I first heard this, I was extremely angry. Then I became very ashamed. I was shamed for us as a society. Together, we have allowed our society to stoop so low, that such a thing would exist, and not only that, people seem to think it's normal to have it. I am talking about people who, when I mention slush fund to them, are like, "Oh yeah, slush fund exists". I am even more outraged by these people. They are seemingly regular citizens, not someone corrupt like a politician or someone in the financial or entertainment business. They are supposed to be outraged by the presence of slush funds but they are not. The apathy of these people is an even stronger sign that our society is sick.

2026-07-15 21:32:29 UTC

On tolerance. We are constantly being told to be tolerant. We should tolerate the many immigrants in our countries, we should tolerate drag queens and transsexuals, and many such things. Anytime we are being told to do such a thing, you can be sure that we are looking at something unsavory. You tolerate something bad, you don't tolerate something good. You don't tolerate a beautiful woman, you don't tolerate the brilliance of a scientist, and you don't tolerate someone saint-like, like Mother Teresa. We only tolerate things and people that are crappy in some way. By the way, have you ever asked yourself, who are these people who keep telling me to be tolerant? If you were like me, I bet you have no idea, either. You just open up the newspaper, or turn on the TV, and messages of this sort will keep washing over you. Ask yourself. Who are the people who keep putting these sorts of messages in there?

2026-07-15 21:31:28 UTC

I seem to hear this sentiment a lot: Whenever there is any kind of conflict between the government and the masses, some people like to think that the government is always right. This is sometimes false, and not only that, it is also an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. For it means that people will blindly throw their support behind the government, whom they mistakenly believe to always have good, kindly intentions, and then, these people's support, which manifests as tax money, is then used by the government, to oppress and put down regular people but more frequently, dissenters, those who go against the government, the "troublemakers". So, any time there is a conflict between the government and the masses, ideally we want to have an open debate, listen to both sides, to see who really is in the right. And when that's not possible, which is often the case because the government would never allow such a debate to take place in the first place, then the safest thing we can do, is to assume that the government is wrong. For one thing, a government that refuses to have an open debate, is highly, highly suspect. Secondly, do we really trust the government? The entity that has such a huge track record of being dishonest, secretive, hiding things from the public, allowing black sites by key agencies, weaponing the Justice process as well as the FBI to go after someone they don't like...etc etc, the list really is too long, but suffice to say, I truly do believe the government has a very well-deserved, very unsavory reputation. And there really is a very good reason for it. And it is that, the government truly is an force of Evil. So, not only should we not put our trust in our government, we should actively spread awareness among regular people, to alert them to the fact their government is not there to serve them, but rather, to oppress and harm them. Make sure you come with plenty of well-researched examples that people can easily verify for themselves. And try to make sure that they are examples well-known to the masses. People don't like to have to do research on obscure stuff. And don't talk in an antagonistic way. Approach people with calm, friendly, pleading words. Think of it this way, you want to make people see things our way. You want them to realize something you know, but they don't know yet. Go through my writings here for more tips. Alternatively seek out like-minded people who are wise and who have experience with these sorts of things. Failing that, read self-help books on how to influence people and win them over. And do not alienate people in any way whatsoever. We need every ally we can get. Every ally lost is a huge loss. We are literally in a struggle for survival. We have to be very, very, very, very careful.
Oh another quick tip: Don't use big words, because that would not help you at all. Also try and relate to people. Talk to them in a way that makes it easy for them to understand. Whenever possible, tailor your talk according to your audience. This one takes a bit of work, but you must learn to be good at it.

2026-07-15 21:29:18 UTC

When some kind of scandal breaks out, a lot of people say that they are mad. But what does that anger do? Does it lead to you doing anything to punish bad politicians? Does it motivate you to make any real changes? No. All it does is that it festers in your mind, making you unhappy, but it does not lead to anything productive. When you are just angry but don't take any action, then that anger is useless.
And a related thing: I am sure we are aware that some groups have been talking about using force....etc, to take back control. You know what I mean. Well, I agree with the sentiment behind it, for I sincerely believe that most politicians, and almost all who are in positions of power, are literally more like animals than humans. They don't respond to anything other than force. If you try to appeal to their better angels, their softer/higher side, then sorry, you might as well be trying to teach a snake about being kind. However, these politicians, are also very intelligent. They will tell the masses that these people are using violence and that they need to be put down. And then the masses cheer the government because they are too stupid to tell the difference between force, which is legitimate, and violence, which is an illegitimate use of force.

2026-07-15 21:22:02 UTC

Some people like to accuse me of being "racist". Well, I don't care about judging someone's character, not by the color of their skin, not by anything else. The only thing I know is, I don't like the physical looks of certain groups of people, and as a result, I want to live far away from them, and not have anything to do with them. Is this "racism"? I guess according to the Left, and the government, it is. But then, I don't care. I will choose for myself however I want to live my life, and I will choose for myself however I want to view the world. If I want to be "racist", it's none of anybody's business.

2026-07-15 21:21:24 UTC

It seems a lot of people are having trouble finding jobs. I know that from my personal experience, that the job market has indeed gotten extremely competitive in the recent years. I was able to get a McJob about 16 years ago or so. And now, there is absolutely nothing, and I sent out quite a few resumes. It makes sense though, the country has let in so many immigrants, there really aren't enough jobs and resources to go around in general. And it appears that the people just take it, even though conditions are really really bad and are only getting worse. And this is because our government knows that it would really take A LOT for the masses to do anything about things, and about the government. And the government also knows that, if that were to happen, it can very easily put it down, because the armed forces, the police, the courts, everybody that has any power, are all a part of it. It's like I have always said, the government does not fear us.

2026-07-15 21:19:43 UTC

I have realized something about how trust works in society. I initially get the idea from exchanges such as the following, where people attempt to figure out the trust-worthiness of sites that rate other sites (also known as fact-checkers). For example, some might question, "How does the bias rating take into account the bias of the site doing the rating?" And the other might say: "I guess one can review their methodology assuming they post it".
Here's my thought: But most people lack the proper training to review the methodology, and not just of science, but of pretty much all the other disciplines. Which necessarily means, in order for society to function, and for people to trust what others are saying so that things can run, we have to listen to someone, usually an "expert". Without this trust, everything falls apart. And the government preys on this. For doubting a government-backed expert is not just about doubting the government's credibility, it can and does lead to the paralysis of society. Since a lot of people don't want society to grind to a halt, they think to themselves, "I better believe what every expert is saying".
Also, just want to point something out. Some people actually get very offended when I say that we shouldn't trust other people blindly. Some people gobble up whatever the TV shows them, while others gobble up the whole Covid thing. When I point out that reports coming out of morgues about mountains of dead bodies are unverified, as well as being practically unverifiable, and similarly, how when the Gates family went on TV to say that they had all taken the shots that Bill Gates pushed so hard for, that this is also impossible to verify, people actually get mad. But saying that something is not verifiable is not the same as saying that those people are lying. In other words, I never said that the morgues are lying. I also did not say the Gates were lying. In fact, all I did is point out an actual fact. It is, as a matter of fact, not personally verifiable, for any of us, to ascertain whether these reports and claims are true or not. I mean, how do you go to every morgue in the country to see whether there are truly mountains of bodies to be burned? And how do you verify that the Gates truly did take the jabs that their patriarch hawked hard? So, when someone sane points this out, that would be me and individuals who think like me, people lose their minds. I think this is a very strange phenomenon. It's like it's not enough to simply disagree with me or to show me where I am wrong; people actually feel the need to get offended about it. I don't get it. And curiously, the people who tend to get mad like this are usually white people. I think this might have to do with the white psychology whereby white people are usually more trusting, and that doubting someone is considered rude in their culture. If I go to any other culture and say I doubt so and so, people don't tend to take offense.

2026-07-15 21:14:43 UTC

The following is a couple years late now, nevertheless I still would like to share it with you all:
Should the government compel Covid vaccination?
I thought that this was a very simple case: The answer is no, because people do, or should, have bodily autonomy. But, apparently, I have found through talking to people online, that a lot of them disagree. I will list their main arguments and my responses to them below:
1. The government already violates bodily autonomy in various ways. For example, people have to wear a seat-belt when in a car, the government can draft people into military service, the government makes people wear a helmet while riding a bike...etc.
My response: Yes, it's true that the government already violates people's bodily autonomy in various ways. However, this doesn't mean we should just go whole log and let them violate it in one more way.
2. The government can force people to take vaccines because vaccines keep other people safe.
My response: Your wanting to feel safe is not reason enough to make me take the vaccines against my will, which violates my bodily autonomy. This is born out by the fact that we as a society already don't force people to take flu shots. Flu shots prevent people from getting sick, and this helps keep other people safe. But this reason is not enough to justify making flue shots mandatory. And if we don't make flu shots mandatory, then we shouldn't make Covid vaccines mandatory.
3. People actually don't have the right to bodily autonomy because it's not enumerated in any authoritative legal document. For example, the Constitution doesn't say that people have the right to bodily autonomy. Neither does any other official document.
My response: Whether people have the right to bodily autonomy is not determined by whether any official document sanctions it. Because this is not a legal issue. It's a philosophical issue. You can believe that you don't have the right to bodily autonomy all you want, but I will still maintain that I have such a right.
And I would go as far as saying that the right to bodily autonomy is self-evident. I do not need to point to some passage in some document to "prove" this. And this isn't an unreasonable position, because if you ask an average person in the West, he will affirm that people in the West do have the right to bodily autonomy.
4. The right of bodily autonomy doesn't exist if the government chooses to not enforce it. Therefore you don't really have this right.
My response: I believe that rights are inherent. And just because the government chooses to not enforce them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist anymore. It merely means that the government is trampling them.
5. We are allowed to ignore someone's bodily autonomy, if he poses a threat to my safety and that of those around me. For example, if you point a gun at me, I can defend myself in ways that can be described as violations of your bodily autonomy, such as, I can push you to the ground, forcefully take the gun away from you, or even shoot at you.
My response: That's because someone pointing a gun at you poses a clear and imminent danger to you. You haven't proven that someone's not being vaccinated poses a clear and present danger to you. You can't just say, well the un-vaccinated could spread covid to me and my loved ones. No. Just because the unvaccinated have the potential to infect you, it does not mean they invariably will. Thus, you haven't proven how they pose a clear, present danger.
6. The government has already mandated other vaccines before. Therefore, it's perfectly ok for them to compel covid vaccination as well.
My response: You need to prove that these Covid "vaccines" are effective enough to justify making them mandatory. They don't do nearly as much as the true vaccines (the ones that did get mandated). They also need an indeterminate number of booster shots, which makes them more like flu shots than real vaccines.

2026-07-15 21:13:30 UTC

A bit about Christianity:
Christianity is ever more than just believing in a deity. It's about being spiritual, loving your fellow humans, giving a helping hand to those in need, being humble, lifting up the poor, helping those who can't help themselves, not chasing after money, status, power, and glory, and many many more such virtues. But of course, some smartie-pants think they are real clever if they could point out the unlikeliness of a divine being, while totally ignoring the total sum of Christianity, the spirit of Christianity, and what it has done to preserve the most beautiful parts of the human soul. And they wonder why normal people spit on people like them.

2026-07-15 21:03:14 UTC

How to tell the government's intent:
Normally, it's hard to tell someone's intent. You have to take into account not just the words of what he says, but also observe his behaviors, to see if actions match up with words, to note if there is any inconsistency in what he says...etc. My point is, it's hard. But, when it comes to an entity that is not an actual human, such as the government, it's even harder.
I am sure that you have heard of things like how the governments in the West are attempting white genocide. Now, I am not here to try and convince you that that truly is the case. Rather, I want to give you some tips, on how to figure out the true intent of an entity such as the government.
Let's say you are an American. If you look at some of the polices of your country's government, I bet you can't help but get the feeling that some of them actually harm your interests in some way. I won't give concrete examples here, you can go find them yourself, and this is assuming you even need to. Nowadays, it seems almost every white person who is not a complete moron, has this weird, uneasy feeling about their government. But anyway. You will notice that, any time your government puts forth something, it can be a law, a policy...whatever. You look at it, think about it, and notice that something about it seems off. But of course, the communication between you and the government is one-way, as in, everything comes from the government to you. Nothing comes from you to the government. This works extremely well for the government, because that means you cannot ask them to explain the things that make zero sense in their policy/law..etc. Now, the government knows this, it knows that intelligent people, which means mostly white people, like to know the "Whys" behind things, and they like to ask questions. So, they will give some half-assed explanation, that goes: "We are doing this because blah blah blah". This is what they call in psychology, a cover story. It's something that a malevolent agent feels that he must supply, in order to field the very logical questions of the other person that he is trying to dupe. So, keep an eye out for this. Look at the many, many policies your government puts forth, that are on the surface innocent-sounding enough, but are actually absolute, total poison for white people. In other words, the government always has some sort of explanation for why this poison is necessary. Again, it's called a cover story, and it's always incredibly unconvincing, lame-ass, and only leaves you with more questions, which, like I established above, you have no way of asking your government on.
I can actually think of one quick example off the top of my head. I remember reading this page on some government website, where they were trying their best to persuade the masses to take the Covid shots. One question went: "Will the vaccines change my DNA?" The website then said some worthless garbage which I refuse to recall, because it would just be a huge insult to my memory cells. But believe me, the "explanation" was weak as dish-water. This is one example of the cover story thing that I mentioned above. By the way, another thing I want to point out, is that the government felt the need to include this question on their website, and then provide some sort of answer to it, in the first place. You see, very, very few normal people would wonder about the vaccines' effects on their DNA. And it's because something like this is not on the average person's mind. Personally I have interacted with quite a few regular people, and I can honestly tell you that this is NOT something the average person thinks about. So, why did the government feel the need to include this question on their website? Well, it's actually very easy. The government knows that there are people out there who are free-thinkers, and who are onto the government's agenda. They suspect, and very correctly so, that the shots have devastating effects on their bodies, the most extreme of which being that they can alter their DNA forever. The government knows this, so they want to pre-emptively quiet the minds of regular people who might otherwise be persuaded by the free-thinkers into not taking the shots. This is why we see such an incongruent, completely unexpected, and completely out-of-place question on the government webpage.
You are unable to look at the behaviors of your government in order to tell its intent, because its not an actual human, it doesn't have behaviors you can observe. However, it does have policies. So, what you should do, is to study the effects of these policies on you, and your loved ones. Do they actually benefit you, or do they actually harm you? So, why don't you go do this for a few minutes. And then, ask yourself this question: "Could my government actually have bad intentions towards me?"
Regarding the Covid vaccines that the government is trying so very hard to push. I don't know the science of vaccines, and I don't know the RNA technology behind it, either. But then again, I don't need to. The fact that the government wants us to take it so badly, tells me that that stuff is poison. In fact, look at the draconian, Orwellian shit that the government does, to people who refuse to take the vaccines. This should give you a very, very clear idea on whether the shots are good, or actually bad, for you.

2026-07-15 21:02:31 UTC

I have come across a lot of clueless semi-retards who claim that the reason the Left keeps pushing these policies that really are just poison, is because it wishes to solve population explosion. To that I say, solving population explosion? I wish the Lefties cared about humanity that much.
It's never about that. They only say that, to make it look like they are good people and that they have noble intentions. Truth is, they only want to depopulate the West, so that there will be no more white people.
If it really were about population control, they would go into countries that have unbridled birth rates, such as China or India, and preach to those people to have fewer babies. But are they doing that though? Nope. Therefore, they are full of it.

2026-07-15 21:01:45 UTC

I have heard a lot of people talk up Trump. They be like, Trump is no role model but his policies are working and what the majority of Americans want; the biggest being a secure border and illegal immigration enforcement. I agree that Dems are absolutely horrid, however, that does not mean Trump is now good. "They" put him forth, with all those really nice policies, because they realized that they have to. It's not because they want to. They still don't want to do anything good for Americans, but they are shrewd enough to realize that they have to look like they do. Case in point: Trump is still pushing the Covid vaccines, is he not? This shows that the Regime still has very vicious intentions towards the American people. That's why they keep pushing this poison.

2026-07-15 21:00:39 UTC

Sometimes people claim that there is an illegal problem in the States because Americans wanted people to clean their toilets and pick their lettuce. I counter with, it is not such that Americans wanted cheap labor, so they let illegals in. Rather, it's more like, the illegals snuck in first, and since they're here now, Americans try to make the best of it by using them for cheap labor. When people say things like that, I know that their brain doesn't work very well, and they all lack an investigative mind. They kind of look at a phenomenon, see that it exists, but they don't go deeper and try to find out why, what caused it. They just come up with the easiest but also the laziest explanation. It is what some might call, an intellectual low-hanging fruit.

2026-07-15 20:59:58 UTC

I was talking about the Ukrainian war with someone. He said he would be very angry if the politicians of his country decided to send young men to the front-line. He did not want to see any of his 3 sons go through that.
Which is very understandable. They're his sons, they carry his genes. But, his politicians don't care. His sons are not their sons, so they have no problem sending them to fight in a war. If his sons die, his genes are lost. But these politicians' genes aren't lost. On a related note, I just don't understand why US has to involve herself in foreign wars. Yeah I get it, the current climate is that it is perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even desirable, to go overseas and meddle in other countries' affairs. It seems that people are very stupid and easily fooled by their politicians. These politicians keep their own children safely secured in some mansion, and they send other people's children to die in a war thousands of miles away. And people cheer this, thinking that they are sending their young men and women to die for a "just cause". I cannot believe the stupidity of it all.

2026-07-15 20:59:42 UTC

Where I live, we have a homeless problem. Our government says it's doing something about it, but I honestly don't see anything concrete being done. I really feel that the government is secretly hoping that the homeless will just die off, it doesn't care, these people do not work, nor do they pay taxes. I bet the government probably secretly thinks that these people are dead-weights, or, "useless eaters". Of course, they are not gonna come right out and say, "We are doing as little as we can, in the hope that all you bums will just die off eventually", so, they just pay lip-service in the mean-time, saying things like how much they care and what steps they are taking and such, when in reality, absolutely nothing that's actually helpful, is being done. I have noticed this tactic employed by governments, and not just on the homeless front, but in a lot of other areas, too.

2026-07-15 20:59:23 UTC

Trump slapped sanctions on India for buying Russian oil, thinking he’d force them to back down. Instead, he got the complete opposite of what he wanted. A lot of people don't realize it, and this doesn't just apply to politics, it applies to pretty much all spheres of human interactions, is that when you use strong-arm tactics, or some form of coercion, very very often, you will only alienate people, push them away, or make them dig in their heels and become more determined to oppose you. I am not saying to never use coercive measures, but rather, these should be used only as a last resort. If you want people to do something, you should first try and persuade them, using logic, and soft, kind, pleading words. Saying things like how you are gonna put sanctions on them, or how you are waiting for them to do something so you can lock them up, will only drive them further away from you, and make them dead-set against you.

2026-07-15 20:58:39 UTC

Sometimes, I come across discussions about right wing conspiracy theory websites. Invariably, someone will trot out some fact-checking sites or sites that rate the trust-worthiness of other sites. Now, I am not defending "right wing conspiracy theory websites", but people really should think about the credibility, trustworthiness, and objectivity of these sites that attempt to rate other sites, and whether they should place their trust in them. I mean, it's one thing if people use their own judgment to judge for themselves, and they have genuinely determined certain sites to be "conspiracy sites". But when they rely on these sites that purport to fact-check and rate other sites, that really is fundamentally no different from placing one's trust in conspiracy sites. Both are sites that contain other people's thoughts, rather than one's own.

2026-07-15 20:57:39 UTC

I came across a tweet on the social media X, that went: John Solomon is releasing an email from Obama’s Deputy AG Sally Yates, which was found by Kash Patel, that explicitly told FBI agents who were investigating corruption at the Clinton Foundation to “shut it down”. And then I heard some people say things like, whistleblowers are beginning to move this investigation forward. The Dems and their Deep State are in big trouble. I just want to say that, I wish the Deep State was in trouble. Seems to me that they (the Deep state) know that as more and more stuff comes to light, their position is becoming increasingly insecure, and they are becoming more and more vulnerable to being found out. So they decided to sacrifice a few unimportant, small players, to satisfy people's cry for blood. It's just a strategic act of self-preservation on the part of the Deep State, nothing more. So let's not get our hopes up.
A similar phenomenon is Trump signing an executive order to use military on cartels. I mean, it's good to do something about cartels, but, cartels aren't a strictly domestic issue, they are an international issue, or, at least, they involve another country, mainly Mexico. How is Trump going to stop all the cartels and to keep them from supplying drugs into the US, when they are mainly based in Mexico? He would need help and cooperation from the Mexico government, right? Anyway, I am not saying that it cannot be done, just that it will be very, very difficult, if it is to be done properly. Call me paranoid, but I think this is just political posturing on the part of Trump to fool his supporters into thinking that he cares about the country.

2026-07-15 20:56:20 UTC

I have been talking to a few people online, who loved squawking about "international laws". I asked them, what is the entity that came up with these international laws, and more importantly, how is it going to enforce them? However, nobody so far has been able to answer these important questions in a satisfactory way. I also asked them to show me a website that directly lists these mysterious international laws. I also wished to find out exactly who came up with these laws. Another logical question is, what will happen, if a country does not obey these international laws? It appears to me that these international laws are rather similar to the United Nations. The UN only has power to the extent that its member countries are willing to submit to its rule. If one country says, "Screw you", there is nothing the UN can do. And it's the same thing with these international laws.
Some people also love mentioning how there are certain rules for military occupation. Below are the things I found: maintaining public order, respecting existing laws, and ensuring basic needs are met..etc, as the obligations of the occupying power. Now, I am not saying these things are bad, obviously they are good, but, what I don't understand is, why would a country use its military, to attack another country, go into it, only to respect the laws of the conquered people, to ensure the needs of the conquered are met..etc? Wouldn't it be easier to, you know, not attack them in the first place? Again, I am not saying that these things are bad or that an aggressor country should just rape and murder and pillage, but rather, I am asking what is the point of using military aggression to invade another country, only to serve her people? Also, if a country is willing to attack another country, what makes us think that it will be willing to abide by these laws and rules? It's almost like asking a rapist, as he is about to rape a woman, to only rape her softly, but not too harshly. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
The very fact that there exist rules for military occupation, is messed up. It's like, we know that military occupation is wrong, but we will let countries engage in it anyway. But our conscience (which is very, very tiny), feels pricked very slightly. So we came up with these B.S. rules (that conveniently are not really enforceable by any entity), so as to make us feel less bad. But what we really should do, is to completely ban military occupation, which we know is bad, evidenced by the fact that we felt the need to come up with these rules. This is so stupid, I actually cannot comprehend how anybody who has a conscience that is even half-way functional, can sit there and think to himself: "Look at how I promote and plaster these things all over the internet. I have done my duty to humanity". By the way, just in case I wasn't being clear enough, I am asking everybody who is reading this article here right now, directly. Do we honestly believe that allowing military occupation at all, is a good thing? What is our rationale for not completely banning military occupation?
Also, I have noticed that, in a lot places on the internet, that there are now more and more voices against Israel and Zionism. Now, obviously I don't know what else people also do, but it seems to me that they are all online activists. They say a bunch of stuff online, but in strategic corners of the internet, where what they say won't be able to influence the masses enough, but it nevertheless is sufficient to target and change the minds of certain individuals that the government wants to control, aka the troublemakers. I feel that these fake activists are installed to give the masses the illusion that people are waking up, that others share the same sentiments that they feel but did not dare utter before. I really feel that the free-flowing internet truly is changing the face of public discourse, and the Powers that Be is starting to realize that some things cannot be concealed from the masses forever. So they try to do damage-control by sending out state actors online to try and influence the direction of conversations so as to prevent real change from taking place. By the way, this is also the reason why there suddenly seem to be a lot of "exposes" on events that used to be very secret, hush-hush, that were not to be talked about. Again, it's because the masses are waking up, and certain truths can no longer be contained. So the government tries again to steer the direction of conversations by doing these "exposes". It's just their way of controlling narratives.

2026-07-15 20:54:56 UTC

I want to say something about liberals. First, let me mention Christians. Now, I don't believe in supernatural beings, and I think that God probably does not exist. However, what we cannot deny is that these Christians believe in something. Whether we agree with that something is beside the point. The fact is that they believe. Now, contrast this with the typical liberal (also known as a lefty or a progressive), who believes in nothing. I mean it's one thing to not believe in, say, Jesus, but the liberals are worse than that. They don't have a sense of the sacred. By that I mean, firstly, there is nothing sacred to them. Secondly, when other people have something that they hold sacred, liberals will not only fail to understand, they will actually be crass enough to mock people for it. This happens because liberals have no frames of reference for holy things. They themselves hold nothing to be holy, so as a result, they genuinely struggle to comprehend that other people can have things that are holy to them. For example, sex to them is just inserting the penis into the vagina (If we are lucky. Some of them want to insert the penis into another man's butt-hole). To them, there is nothing sacred about sexual union, it's just something that one does which gives one a lot of pleasure. Kind of like scratching an itch except that it feels a lot better. They support women's right to abortion, and they see the unborn as just a tadpole, because that's what it appears to them, visually. When someone tries to tell them that he believes in the sanctity of life, the liberals will laugh at him. When someone tells liberals that he is willing to die for his cause, where the cause is not something that the liberals approve of, they will say to his face that he's being theatrical. And then they will probably laugh at him, too. Liberals are ok with homosexuality, transgenderism, giving hormone blockers to young people whose bodies are still developing, and all kinds of depravities, because, again, nothing is sacred to them. They go by the principle of, "Do whatever makes you happy", which when we really think about it, is basically telling humans to act like animals. Animals do things that make them happy, or, things that give them pleasure. Animals don't believe in anything, they just follow that which gives them a dopamine hit. Apparently to liberals, this is what humans should aspire to.
Liberals are spiritually barren. By spiritually barren, I don't mean that they don't believe in Jesus or God. One can be a non-Christian and still be very spiritual. Unlike a normal person, liberals don't have any beliefs, they only know that racism is the ultimate wrong. Which brings me to my next point: Liberals like to call themselves tolerant, they pride themselves on it, and indeed, and some of them truly do live up to this word. That said, if you look at the concept of tolerance more critically, you will see that it simply means one will sit idly by and abide all kinds of abominable things. Someone snuck into the country illegally and then popped out a kid to get citizenship? Let's tolerate that. Someone wants to cut off the foreskin of little boys who cannot give consent? Let's tolerate that. Political agitators encourage people to riot and set things on fire and then say they are juts peacefully protesting? Let's tolerate that. People in our societies get literally darker and darker, and we are surrounded by sounds of foreign tongues whenever we go? Let's tolerate that. Foreign nationals want to come into the country and to buy up land and important facilities, as well to influence the outcomes of elections through political donations? Let's tolerate that. High-level government agencies are hijacked from within and then weaponized to persecute certain political players? Let's tolerate that. Someone in high office was found to have lied again and again to investigating authorities? Let's tolerate her lies because again, tolerance is apparently the highest virtue in our modern world, right? And so on and so forth, you get my point. I want to emphasize that we have been letting these morally anemic, spiritually dead, pieces of trash liberals boss us around for long enough. It is time to tell them to shut their mouths and go sit in a corner quietly. We, who are intolerant of all that is bad, are taking back control. We believe that believing in something is what humans should aspire to. We believe that we have a spiritual side to us, and we want to nourish that. We believe that tolerance leads to the flourishing of bad things, and we are jealously intolerant of that. And we are proud of it.

2026-07-15 20:53:02 UTC

On the subject of trying to convert people: I find one good way is by asking questions. Asking questions takes the edge off, compared to straight up contradiction. Saying "No" to their position and trying to argue them out of it is seen as confrontational and leads people to dig in their heels. Personally I like to get them to think and examine their beliefs through the use of questions. It seems to work better because it doesn't put you in the position of an antagonist. And one key thing is to show them patience and compassion. Remember, people are ignorant not because they are evil or they choose to be, but rather, it's because they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You were once there, too. So show them kindness, and act like a guide who guides them onto our way of thinking.

2026-07-15 20:50:24 UTC

I have always said that the ultra-wealthy, owners of huge corporations live off of the profit generated by their employees. Some people might counter that they also have to think hard to come up with strategies to keep their business growing and to compete against their rivals. To that I say: This is called wealth management. It's not truly working in the sense that regular people understand it. Yes it requires mental effort, however, so do a lot of other things. When a working stiff opens up his online banking to manage his money, he is also putting in mental effort. But nobody would call this working. So let's all stop this, "Let me make excuses for the wealth class", ok?

2026-07-15 20:50:08 UTC

By giving someone your business, you are not simply deciding who to buy a product or service from. You are literally choosing whose life you sustain, with your money This is very powerful. You are deciding who gets to thrive and who goes home and puts nothing on the dinner table. You have enormous power and it resides in your wallet. Use it wisely.

2026-07-15 20:48:23 UTC

Ruthlessness and betrayal in a government really pays off. I remember reading about the story of William Buckley, a CIA agent captured by Islamic jihadists. He eventually died while in captivity. The CIA claims to have attempted to rescue him. I don't know if that's true or if they are only putting on a show so that other CIA agents will think that their bosses care about them. But it made me think. If the CIA is heavy on doing the right thing, and really did try hard to free Buckley, all those efforts will cost resources for the agency. But, if they choose betrayal, and just say, "Screw him", they will save lots of resources and energy, which they can use to simply train more agents to replace him. An agency that does the latter will always beat out the one that tries to do the right thing.
This reminds me of a related thing. Imagine that on a battle-field, there are soldiers. The government has decided to retreat, so it needs to bring the soldiers home. However there is one soldier missing, they can't find him. Warzones are dangerous, plus it takes a non-negligible amount of effort and resources to find one stray soldier. So, the government might choose to betray him, and just go home with the rest of the soldiers. Naturally, this would make people angry. They would criticize the government. Maybe they would urge or even somehow make the government spend resources to locate the one missing soldier. These things are all easy to do. However, what people fail to understand is that, if the opposing government is cold-hearted and callous and it chooses betrayal, then it will have saved huge amounts of resources, which gives it an advantage over a government who cares, and who wants to do the right thing. So, what I am saying that it's easy enough to criticize the government, but it doesn't do anything meaningful. We need to realize the principle that treachery, callousness and generally being cold-hearted will always have an advantage and that we should do something about it. Otherwise, any good government that manages to arise will always lose.

2026-07-15 20:47:49 UTC

During the Pandemic, we heard about things like infection rates, hospitalization rates, and death rates...etc from covid. We hear them in the form of news, either from TV or newspapers. However, the thing is, for the vast majority of us, there is simply no way for us to verify the truthfulness of these claims. It seems to me that people hear something on TV, and they just assume that it's true. They probably think, "They would never show it on tv if it weren't true. TV is consumed by hundreds of millions of people. The stuff on it must have been carefully verified." I bet this is the mindset of a lot of people.
Note I am not saying that TV and newspapers are definitely lying to us. I don't have proof of that. But I just want to point out that we as consumers should always take the stuff we see on TV and read in papers with a grain of salt. Not because they are lying to us; but rather, because they could be lying to us. And more importantly, we simply have no way of personally verifying most of it, which is why we should always be a little doubtful. And if someone (usually from the internet but not always) disagrees with the official narratives, we should hear him out. mustn't be quick to write him off just because he says stuff that's different from what we see on TV or read in newspapers. Almost all major news outlets and TV networks are owned by a tiny cabal of billionaire oligarchs. They control the flow of information, what gets shown on TV and what doesn't, what gets talked about and doesn't. And they censor people who contradict their narratives. Dissenters have no platform from which to speak, and the internet is the last place for them, where they can have their voice heard. So, true, we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet. However, when I see something on the internet that conflicts with the official narrative, I am inclined to believe the nobody online. He is almost certainly an average person just like me and he likely has no agenda.
Newspapers, TV networks...quite often deliberately neglect to report certain news, news that can be argued as being consequential. They do this to keep their readers and viewers in a state of ignorance. I am just wondering if you think this is a problem, and if yes, what we can do about it. It seems to me that it's very difficult to prove that they are intentionally withholding certain news. They can always say, "Oh, we didn't know", or other times, "We didn't think it was news-worthy". We all know it's a lie, but we can't prove it directly.
Anyways would love your thoughts.

2026-07-15 20:46:22 UTC

Hello, in my country, we have laws against employers discriminating against potential hires based on certain grounds. Race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin...etc etc. You probably have something similar in your country.
See here: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/rights-workplace.html
What I don't get is, why is it any of the government's business whether private businesses want to discriminate? I get it, the government should be for everybody, it should be fair to everyone, so they decide that they will not discriminate. This is fine. But if I am a business owner, then I am a private entity. Whether I want to discriminate should not be any of the government's business.
In my opinion, the government can only intervene when there is a criminal matter. For example, when a private individual has committed a crime, such as murder, rape, assault, that type of things. However, discrimination is not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter. And it's only against the law because the government says it is. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about discrimination. Discrimination is not morally wrong like rape or murder is. In fact, the fact that there are so many people, people who are otherwise normal, law-abiding individuals, who nevertheless discriminate. This highly suggests to me that discrimination is normal, that it's part of being human. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so common.

2026-07-15 20:45:29 UTC

I watched a few groups reacting to my government's totalitarian measures in response to the Pandemic, and I realized something: When ordinary people are unhappy with their government, very often there is little they can do, because they are usually too busy working and making a living, or otherwise too busy living their lives to find the time to organize themselves against the government to any meaningful degree. They don't put up much of a resistance and just let themselves be ruled, despite the fact they are superior in number. The government is made up of a much smaller number of people, however it has three advantages over regular people: 1. It's more organized, 2. It's unified against a common opponent, namely the masses, and 3. It makes a living out of ruling. The last one means it doesn't have any other job or work that demands its time and efforts. As a result, the government can completely focus on ruling, and it has the upper hand over average citizens whenever conflict arises between them. People who are unhappy with the government not only need to be able to find time out of their lives to reach the masses, they also face the additional difficulty that those that they are able to reach might themselves have trouble taking time out of their lives to organize effectively. Besides, there are many many things the government can do to the people very easily since it's already in the ruling position. However, the masses can't really do much to the government, outside of acts of revolution, which are rare, hard to organize, and often undesirable even when successful. Another advantage for the government is that it's sustained by the taxes. It doesn't have to worry about where the money that it needs is coming from and how it can keep fighting. But the people have to come up with money when most of them have to work to make a living. This is another difficulty the ordinary people face.
A related thing is, the government doesn't need to make sure everybody agrees with it. We all know about the existence of political dissenters, basically people who disagree with the government. What a good government would do is to either try and come up with better laws, polices...etc so as to satisfy the dissenting, unhappy people, or try to talk things out with them, to find out why they are unhappy with the government. But a bad government doesn't need to do any of those things. It just needs to make sure that there are enough people who agree with it, and that these people work and pay taxes, which sustains it. Then the bad government will have steady money coming in, which enables it to hunt down the dissenters, without having to do the right thing, which is mending its ways.
Can you think of more ways that governments have an advantage over their citizens?

2026-07-15 20:44:42 UTC

Trump's son-in-law Kushner, his family owns over 9000 properties. Can you imagine that? How many houses does one family need? I really think we should start putting a hard cap on how much wealth a single person can have. This isn't communism or jealousy of the rich. This is to ensure that resources are shared more equitably. People like Kushner essentially take finite resources from others and hoard them. Why should this be legal? i really feel that nobody should own such an absurd amount of resources, because there is only so much to go around. When one person has so much, that necessarily means he's taking it away from others. I mean if a regular American works hard and owns like 300 acres, that's one thing. Those belong to him, because he put in the hard work and he earned them. But owning 9000 properties, it's just impossible to justify resource-hoarding on that level. Look at the Kushner family. What work did they do to earn those 9000 houses?
I mean, imagine it. Bill Gates owns hundreds of thousands of acres of land. He can lease out these lands to farmers, simply because he had money to begin with. Now these farmers have to pay money to him every month, just for the right to use his land to make a living for themselves. What has Bill Gates done to deserve this much land and to have these farmers working for him as if he were a feudal lord? Why should he be able to sit on his butt doing nothing at all and receive money from people who labor hard? Just because he has some money? How is this fair? Why should rich people be able to benefit from other people's labor, just because they had some money to begin with? Why should they be able to buy up the means of production just because they have more money than we do? Why is this a good way to organize our society? Why do we allow this? By the way, I mention Kushner and Bill Gates because they are what people are familiar with. There is a company called Blackrock, they own even more.
I believe the land thing I just mentioned touched upon something deeper. It's not just land, it's resources in general. There has never ever been any formal, agreed-upon-by-everyone way to divide resources among members of a society. So pretty much they are up for grabs. So normally, some of the "better" people grab a disproportionately large portion for themselves. "Better" people can be defined in many ways, but in our context, it means people who are more intelligent, more ambitious, more driven, more business-minded, and more aggressive. In fact, that there are "better" people is actually a fundamental fact of human life. There will always be people who are better than other people in some ways. They can be better in the ways I described above or in other ways, but this isn't important. The important thing is that some will be better than others. And it is from this inequality that some other even greater inequality will come. In the case of resources, this usually means "better" people will end up with an unequal amount that is grossly distorted in their favor. We actually already see this in the US, where the richest 1% owns more than the bottom 20% of the entire society, or something like that. I feel that it's about time that we as a society look at this huge gap, doesn't matter if it's in income or wealth, what we need to do is to make sure that the "not-as-good" people still get their portion of the resources, while the "better" people get a bigger portion, but not so monstrously big as it currently is. In other words, we need to re-organize the way our society is, especially when it comes to how to divide up resources. The exact details of how this is to be done can be worked out later. What we need right now is the realization that the rich/the better shouldn't get too, too rich, and the poor/the not-as-good should be reasonably taken care of and be assured of a minimum level of comforts in life.
Also, I called Bill Gates a feudal lord. It might have been a joke, but I really think it's not too far off. We in the modern world would like to believe that kings and queens and monarchs and dukes and barons don't exist anymore, and that we are not ruled like subjects like our ancestors were. But guess what? We still are, it's just that those who rule us have other names now. Now we have people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, various people who are rich and powerful, regardless of what their actual names or titles are. Notice the similarity between these people and the kings and queens of the olden days? That's right, these people also don't have to do any work, and they all entirely live off the labor and sweat of the masses. In the olden days, the were called the peasants. Today it's called the workers/employees. The names have changed, but the fundamental nature and qualities haven't changed. We are still the bottom-most layer of society, and we work hard to sustain those above us.

2026-07-15 20:44:04 UTC

I have seen quite a few investment guides and strategies, written by people who hope to be able to retire as early as possible. Apparently this is what a lot of people dream about. What they don't know is that, the government wants the total opposite of that. The government likes having a lot of workers who pay taxes. It also wants to ensure there is a big pool of labor to work for the corporations that it's in bed with and whose interests it cares about and tries to protect. As such, people who openly talk about an investment strategy that is actually successful work against themselves, because if too many people copy the strategy and start becoming financially independent, this will draw the government's attention. The government will then pass new laws to make the investment strategy stop working. The government does not want a lot of people retiring early and not working to make taxes for it and profit for its corporate cronies.

2026-07-15 20:42:11 UTC

I want to talk about how bribery works in the West. I believe that would-be bribers don't actually approach a politician and say to him, "I would like to bribe you", or "I want to get you to do despicable things for money". Something like those might fly in a more corrupt country like China or India, but not in the West. Instead, these bribers probably first try to get close to the politician they want to bribe by getting into his life. Maybe invite him out for coffee or lunch a few times. This can be achieved by the bribers claiming to be his constituents and that they would like some of his time. In other cases, maybe the would-be bribers worked with him on his campaign with the aim of getting close to him and connecting with him. My point is that since he is a public official, getting close to him isn't very difficult. Then, the bribers will start showering him with nice things and favors. For example, they will treat him to dinners at nice, expensive restaurants, and give him nice things, things that make his life very pleasant, such as a jacuzzi suit or a Rolex watch or a speed boat, things like that. And they will make it sound totally innocent, they will say that it's a gift to him to show their appreciation for his hard work, or something like that. Then, once he is accustomed to the sweet life, the bribers then come out and indicate to him what they want done, usually what laws they want him to pass. If he has integrity and refuses, then the gifts and nice things stop coming. But he has become accustomed to having them. So now, his brain chemistry will scream at him to do whatever it takes to keep the dopamine hits coming, and that means more gifts and perks and favors. So he does what the bribers want him to do. This is the process by which a normally non-corrupt politician can be bribed and corrupted.
Other times, the bribers start with the politician's family, usually his wife. They will shower her with gifts and nice things. They will do this till she gets "hooked", and then she will implore him to do the bribers' bidding because her brain is addicted to the nice things and she will do whatever it takes to keep the gifts and nice things coming. This is a powerful tactic because even though a principled politician is normally hard to bribe, when the closest person in his life starts putting pressure on him, it's hard to say no to that. So the bribers effortlessly recruited the most important person in a politician's life to persuade him to do what they want.

2026-07-15 20:41:26 UTC

I want to talk about what I call, political bet-hedging. So basically, in an election, extremely wealthy donors donate money to candidates who have completely opposing platforms. This is so that no matter who wins, the winner will be beholden to the donors and will do whatever they want, such as pass laws that they ask for.
When I think about something like this, it makes me angry. When I donate my hard-earned money to a candidate, it's because I believe in what he says. I share his vision. My support for him is real and it comes from my heart. And I would never in a million years donate to his opponent. I want the candidate who shares my values to win. But these political bet-hedgers game our system, just because they have a few more dirty shekels than the rest of us. These people, they don't have any political convictions like you or I do. They have no principles, no morals, no ideals, they don't believe in anything. They only care about furthering their influence and making their bank accounts even fatter. In fact, they are exactly the type of people who would persuade countries to go to war with one another, just so that they could profit off the conflict and the deaths and suffering that come with it. They believe in neither side's cause, all they want to do is sell arms to both sides, and make tons of money. The sad thing though is that people like this are very reproductively successful. They tend to have a lot of children, whom they fathered with many women, because their obscene amounts of wealth allow them to keep women around like that. The now-dead Epstein comes to mind. He kept twenty women around, who were all pregnant by him. He probably thought his ability to control, manipulate and blackmail powerful politicians meant his genes were very superior. The fact he was wealthy further cemented this view. He probably genuinely thought he should pass on lots of copies of his genes. A lot of the rich and filthy think like this.
Anyway, back to political bet-hedging. I think it would be very difficult to prove an instance of political bet-hedging. People can donate to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. Even though we all know they donate purely to benefit themselves, not because they genuinely believe in a cause or want to support a particular candidate. I really feel the phenomenon of political bet-hedging is a real, serious problem, however it is one that is not provable, and there is nothing we can do about it.

2026-07-15 20:40:07 UTC

A lot of us like to think that businesses provide us with products or services that improve our quality of life, and this is how they make money. But I can honestly tell you that businesses only care about making money off of you, they don't care about anything else. They don't care about giving you value, nor do they care about increasing your quality of life or raising your happiness. They only provide products and services to you grudgingly, because this is the only way they can get you to open your wallet. If there were a way for them to make money without providing anything of value to you, trust me they would do it. I am reminded of something I read about: there is a jewelry retailer. They make money chiefly off of their diamond rings. One day, they discovered a huge deposit of diamonds in some remote part of Russia. Do you think that this big increase in supply should drive down the prices of diamond rings? No, it didn't. Instead, the company jealously guarded the discovery, then made sure diamond prices remain high as before. But I thought businesses offered products to enrich consumers' lives? A huge deposit leads to lower costs for the company, and this should translate into lower prices for the consumers, right? No, how silly of me. They don't want this huge increase in supply to depress the prices of all their other diamonds, and all the diamonds to be sold in the future. You see, they can make more money by keeping the prices artificially high, despite being able to source diamonds cheaply. Selling diamonds cheaply benefits consumers but not them. In other words, they are only motivated by profit. I hope this real-life case illustrates the point that businesses do not care about increasing your welfare or happiness. They only care about making money off you. I feel that this is one serious and inherent failing of capitalism. Businesses exist solely to generate profit for the owners, benefits to the consumers are entirely incidental.
A related phenomenon is that businesses do provide something, but they overcharge. For example, Starb*cks charging 5 dollars for a cup of a blended drink. These drinks are mostly flavored using chemicals, and these are very cheap. The only thing that pushes up the cost a bit is the whipped cream on top, which also probably doesn't cost them that much because they buy it in bulk. The end result is that each drink probably doesn't cost more than a few cents to make. But look at the exorbitant prices they charge us! I know that they also have overheads such as rent, and they also have to pay their employees. Nobody knows the exact numbers but my guess is that they still make a tremendous amount of money, considering that they have stores everywhere and keep opening new ones. Now, consider food at supermarkets. With improvements in food technology, agricultural practices, transportation and logistics, the real costs of food production are probably very low. But our food isn't cheaper. Where I live, if you go to a grocery store to pick up some ready-to-eat food, you are looking at 5 dollars per person easily, just to have something to put into your belly. If you actually want to eat till you are full and satisfied, it will cost a lot more. I frankly do not believe food costs that much to make. They might say, "oh but we have a lot of other costs". But the thing is, nobody really knows unless they are also in the industry themselves. The way I see it, businesses charge as much as they can, because they want to make as much money as possible. They get away with overcharging since there isn't any real competition. Yes there exist competing chains of grocery stores, but they too overcharge. These competitors' main objective is also to make money, it is not to benefit the consumers. The upshot? Nobody tries to lower their prices to any meaningful degree, and consumers pay prices that far exceed the actual costs of the products. This applies to both blended coffee drinks as well as basic necessities like food. This is a major facet of profit-driven capitalism that has failed us.
Specific to this failing of capitalism, I have a solution. I propose this thing called a low-profit business. Basically, it's similar to a non-profit organization. The staff it employs is very similar to volunteers, except they don't work for free, they still get paid. They get paid so that they can make a living. But they won't get rich. And the actual business' focus is not on making a profit. Its aim is to provide goods and services at the absolute lowest prices. It only aims to make enough to cover wages and overheads, and if there is some money left over, the business can open more stores. These additional stores will all follow the same low-profit philosophy. I want to do this because I want to see if it's possible to have a business that is not solely driven by profit. I want a business that is motivated by increasing human happiness. Imagine this: a coffee shop that charges you only enough to recoup the costs of the ingredients, employee wages, rent and other associated costs. We could be looking at a cappuccino that costs, say, only one dollar. If not that, then at least a lot less than the going rate charged by for-profit major coffeehouse chains. This idea can definitely work. We already have people who are willing to work for free (aka volunteers). This tells me that there exist people for whom money isn't the only thing. Why can't we take these people's philosophy and apply it towards a business? Under my scheme, no one will get rich, however, it won't matter, because everything will be so cheap. People might not be millionaires, but they will all live like one.
While we are on the topic of chains: I believe that businesses should be local. The owner should be local, the staff it hires should be local, because the customer base it sells to is local. I don't want huge multi-national corporations profiting off of local communities, it just means money is coming out of the local area and flowing into the pockets of someone who is from a far, far away place, who has no stake in the health of the community that his business sells to. When people buy and shop local, they are supporting someone who actually comes from and lives in that area. And this person is more likely to care about the health of the community and what happens to it. He is also more likely to spend the money he makes locally. This contributes to the local economy and allows us to keep money locally.
A word about corporations: You will hear a lot of paid shills say if we don't allow corporations to outsource, or hire cheap foreign labor to replace Americans, they will pack up and leave. I say: If corporations go elsewhere, then we will simply pass laws that prohibit them from selling their products in the US. My message to them: if you want to profit off of us, you better be prepared to give us jobs, too. You are a part of the community, and I expect you to do your part to help the community grow. You do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, I would say corporations need us the consumers more than we need them. The true creator of jobs is not businesses. It's the demand of the consumers for goods and services. If corporations leave, other small or medium businesses will appear to take their place. In other words, we don't need them; they need us. Corporations will do well to remember this.
Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves the reason why we have businesses. I believe that the reason is that we have needs that need to be met. As a society, we need goods and services. that is the real reason we allow stores and companies to exist. It is not to make sure business owners get to make lots of money. That is not the goal of a society.

2026-07-15 20:38:52 UTC

We have the right to have protests. But, I just want to ask, what good do these protests do? Even if we were to mobilize the entire country's population in a protest, if the president still chose to not do what we want, is there anything we could do about it? No, there isn't. There is absolutely nothing we can do if the government does not respond to our demands or address our grievances. Yes, in theory, the government should respond. They should carry out our will. They should care. But they don't. They should be our servants but they are not. We are given the illusion of having power over our elected officials, when in fact, we have very little. And these supposed servants are, in actuality, our rulers. They rule over us, and compel us to obey them through the laws that they pass. We can in theory vote out bad politicians, but the problem is, the new batch we elect will be no different than the ones kicked out. They will simply continue to not do what it is that we want them to do, and nothing changes. We grit our teeth and stew in anger as business goes on as usual.
But we the people are sometimes in the wrong, too. Often, I see that whenever something goes wrong in people's lives, they blame it on the government. For example, there is a natural disaster. A hurricane, perhaps, and some people lose their homes or get stranded. Some people will immediately blame the government for it, even though the government has no control over the weather. People just want to take their anger out on something, someone, and they often choose the government. I am not trying to find excuses for politicians. Maybe they indeed did not evacuate the victims promptly enough, maybe they have been incompetent in their rescue efforts, I don't know. But I just want to point out that a lot of times, the government really did not do anything wrong. I feel that we the people, should be more reasonable. There are times when government did wrong, and there are times when it didn't. Another example I can think of, is the French government pushing back their retirement age by a few years. The French public was outraged. But, when you think about it, this really isn't the French government's fault. It is not their fault that people are now living so much longer that social security becomes overburdened. This is the result of medical sciences making so much progress and being able to increase people's lifespan so much. The government has no control over what science does. Yet, when they inevitably have to do something about the pension age, people act like the government is screwing them over. I feel that this is incredibly unfair to the government, and it shows that the masses can sometimes be very unreasonable. I feel that we shouldn't just reflexively blame the government anytime life doesn't turn out exactly how we want.

2026-07-15 20:37:10 UTC

Random political thoughts:
Politicians love helping themselves to the taxpayers' money.
My country's prime minister, Trudeau, went on a six-day trip, accompanied by his son, to “strengthen ties” in the Indo-Pacific region in September. The trip cost taxpayers nearly $ 2 million, with nearly $ 200,000 spent on in-flight catering. And Mary Simon, another official of a very high rank, racked up an $ 80K in-flight catering bill on a trip to the Middle East. MLAs (which stands for members of the legislative assembly, a type of lawmaker in my country) are entitled to claim $ 61 per day to cover the cost of meals when working. To me this is bull. When I am working, I bring my own lunch. I don't get to expense my meal. In fact there is nobody to expense it to. And if I try to get someone to pay for my lunch, they will say to me, "what kind of fool do you take me for?" Yet, we pay for MLAs' lunches. We've been fools for far too long. It needs to stop. MLAs should pack their own lunch. They already get paid a salary, they can use that money to make their own lunch to bring to work, just like everybody else. This isn't unreasonable at all. And the same principle extends to politicians in other countries, too, such as the USA. I am sure Americans also have a problem with politicians spending the public funds on themselves.
I say that we should severely restrict expenses associated with trips to foreign countries, and meetings with foreign leaders. Yeah, I get it, top officials are technically working as they dine with these foreign politicians. But I don't see why the food has to cost a lot of money. Why can't we restrict the food items to coffee and cookies, or something equally low-cost? Presidents and prime ministers shouldn't be able to have banquets just because they are working. And if foreign leaders feel slighted when they see that they are served with just coffee and cookies, no problem, just explain to them that this is the will of the people. If they are our allies, they will understand. We should also drastically reduce trips to foreign countries, as these cost a lot of money too. They are the perfect way for politicians to enjoy themselves on the public dime. We now have teleconference technology, we should put it to good use. If the president needs to hold a meeting with another country's officials, do it on a computer screen. I don't see any reason that they must meet the latter in person. Whatever they need to discuss, it can be done remotely. The details can be worked out, but the key is to prevent politicians from spending the public money on themselves.
Another thing:
I remember reading about my country's federal budget of 2024. There is an item in there that allocates money to me and similar people, who have a particular need. It is a good amount of money, however, since there are many of us, when that money is equally divided among us, we each don't get too much. I can't help but think that if we limited the number of people receiving the money, I would get more. The fewer the people, the more I could get. And if there were nobody else, then in theory I would get all of it. But of course, two things stop me from realizing this. Number 1, I would feel bad. I can not in good conscience deny other people of this benefit, because I know that they need it just as much as I do. Secondly, and more importantly, I do not have the means to make this a reality. I don't have access to the ears of lawmakers. I can not influence them to pass laws that benefit me personally. In other words, I have nobody to lobby for me, I have no mechanism to shape and influence things to my advantage. However, there are people who do. They not only have a fleet of lobbyists working on their behalf, who persuade lawmakers to pass laws and enact policies to their advantage, they also don't have any compunction about hoarding money to themselves. They don't care that by diverting money to themselves, they are harming other people with genuine needs. These people are known as special interest groups. And they need to go.

2026-07-15 20:36:21 UTC

About 911 and any other similar event, here’s the thought process that I use: basically, I look at all the improbabilities that have been pointed out. By itself, any one such improbability does not constitute proof that the thing was staged. However, when you have many improbabilities, then, the possibility of them all being accidental becomes low. In short, I look at the cumulative effect. In the 911 attack, someone apparently captured footage of people jumping out of the burning tower. It was very strange that anyone would just happen to have his camera out to record the trade towers, on a random day, where, at the time, nothing was happening. If you use this as proof that 911 was staged, people will argue with you, and you will likely back down yourself because there is a technical possibility that someone would really just happen to have his camera out on a random day. So you chalk this up to “improbable, but possible”. However, when there are multiple such improbable but possible events that also took place, then the chances of all of them being complete random, chance events are much lower. This is why I personally believe 911 was staged, not because I have concrete proof of any single thing, but because there were too many improbabilities.
Another thing: Nobody is saying that they have absolute proof that 9-11 was an inside job, or that it was deliberately allowed to happen by the feds. But some people have this tendency to violently reject anything that smells like a "conspiracy theory" to them. They have this overwhelming urge to explain things away. To them, everything has a benign explanation. They think that conspiracies can never happen. These people are almost always white, who grew up among and spend all of their time with white people. They are shielded from reality. They only know people who are good and non-evil. They cannot comprehend that there are people out there who are extremely evil and who not only intend for but actually do carry out extreme harm.

2026-07-15 20:35:21 UTC

How to survive the coming storm
I believe we pull our money out of the stock market (which is basically a huge casino waiting to vaporize your hard-earned money) and buy bitcoin, gold, ammo etc, we should also try and buy lots of land. With land, you can grow veggies and raise livestock on it, and this means you will be self-sufficient. Some people like the idea of owning precious metals like gold, saying that it can be used to trade for food when the worthless fiat money collapses. My own thought is that gold is better than fiat money, however ultimately, its still not the best because what is the value of having gold or silver when there is no food that you can trade it for? Owning land means you will have food, which is what a lot of people are going to want. And one thing that proves the value of landownership is the government's reaction to (white people) buying land. Yes, the government tries its level best to prevent white people from owning land. And this very action tells you that it must be a good idea. When in doubt, always do the opposite of what your government wants. In fact this principle works in almost every other area that you can think of. Your government hates you as a white person. It hasn't cared about you in decades. Anyway, living off the land is difficult but possible. Yes people might need food from super markets during the transitional period. But once everything starts to be harvest-ready, they will have very few needs for super markets. Self-sufficiency of this kind is very empowering, which is why the US government treats survivalists and homesteaders as enemies and keeps close tabs on them.
People have been talking about inflation and how the purchasing power of their money is eroding. I don't have any idea how economy works, and I do not know the best way to preserve the value of one's money. However, one thing I do know is that the fiat money that we own, is ultimately worthless. It's fiat, and not backed by anything (such as silver or gold). And the government just keeps printing more of it, thus diluting its value. My recommendation to you is this: spend all your money. Yep, I mean it. But don't spend it on useless things like cheap plastic goods. Spend it in a way that's meaningful. By that I mean, have lots and lots of children. Then spend your money (while it still has value) getting them useful college degrees (not something useless like gender studies or political science, for example). And when you are old, your many children will take care of you. So basically, own land and have lots of children. This is what our ancestors had been doing for thousands of years.
One more thought I want to add: say you do buy land, and lets say the doomsday that some people have been predicting does come to pass. You have to be mentally prepared that you as a landowner with food to spare, will become a target of roving bands of robbers and thugs (most likely made up of minorities). They are going to rob you. So, in order to combat this, buy lots of guns and ammunitions, learn how to shoot. But not only this, you must try and find like-minded people, and form a little community of sorts. You will help one another in times of need, and watch out for one another. And when gangs of minority thugs start to threaten you, your properties, or your families, band together with your neighbors, your fellow landowners, to defend yourselves. In other words, don't become little islands. Though you might be self-sufficient in terms of food, you still need help in other areas, such as defense. So, buy up land with other people who share your vision, or if not that, then aim to become good friends with your neighbors. And did I mention that you should have lots of ammos and learn to become a good shooter?
I just heard that the government is going after farmers. This is their way of telling us how important farmers are. So what I would do is become friends with farmers in your area, talk to them, listen to the problems the government is causing them, help them out however you can. You probably won't be able to completely convert them in one go, but it will be good to earn their friendship. And then, try and sow in their hearts distrust of the government. Help them see the government truly does not have their best interest at heart. Show them real-life examples, which shouldn't be hard, as there will be plenty such examples. You can also consider becoming a farmer yourself, it's your decision. But what I do know is that if you do, it would be a very positive thing, because the government seems to be threatened by white people owning land and growing their own food. Whatever the government wants you to do less of, is what you should do more of.
Just want to add a bit more about becoming friends with farmers: the best to convert someone to our side is not to come at him with stuff you want to say. The best way is to ask him how he is doing, and if he has troubles, listen to them. We would like to believe that humans are persuaded by rational arguments, facts, and logic etc. However, that's rarely how it works. Most people go by how you make them feel. If they like you on a personal level and feel like that they can trust you, then they will be willing to listen to a lot of things you say. So your number one mission isn't to persuade and convince, it should be to win people's hearts. This doesn't only apply to farmers, it also applies to members of the military. In fact, it applies to pretty much everyone. So, be a good friend, be the first one to extend a helping hand, and act honorable. Remember, we are the ambassadors of our cause. We should always conduct ourselves in a way that will make people think, "He is a good guy. He can be trusted".

2026-07-15 20:33:22 UTC

I mentioned that liberals believe people should do whatever makes them happy. I want to talk a bit more about this. Humans are animals, and as animals, we do what gives us pleasure. We like to eat delicious food, drink rich and smooth coffee, we like to play computer games, we like to watch entertaining TV shows, we want our beds to have silky, comfy sheets...etc etc, you get my point. I am not saying these things are bad. It is natural to want pleasure, to feel good, to want comfort and to enjoy. But, the problem is that we have made these things the only things in our lives. We pursue happiness to the exclusion of everything else. We have neglected things that are just important, and in fact have been an integral part of what we are as Homo Sapiens. I am talking about things like spirituality, believing in something, honor, having principles to live by, being a good, moral person...etc, and these are just what I can think of off the top of my head, trust me there are many, many more. These things might sound old-fashioned at first, however, when you really study them, you will see that they have been with us ever since the dawn of our existence. Proof: the ascetics and Spartans, Medieval monks who eschewed earthly pleasures and lived in monasteries , modern-day Catholic nuns who live lives with devotion and strict moral codes..etc. The fact that these people exist or existed, proves my point that humans are never meant to pursue pleasures as the only aim in their lives. For humans, the pursuit of happiness, in and of itself, is not inspiring. Coming up with better and better ways to stimulate the pleasure center in our brains does not lift up our spirits. And this is because we haven't evolved to be this way. "Man does not live by bread alone" is not just a religious saying, it is a truthful observation of (some) humans. Some humans have a spiritual side to them, that cannot be nourished by any material things or pleasures of the flesh.
Of course, I am not saying to go and join a monastery. I am also not saying to give up all things that make you happy. It is fine to live an enjoyable life, just don't make it the only thing in your life. You might ask, so what should I pursue in addition to pleasures? Well, personally, I believe in developing oneself spiritually, alleviating suffering and being of service to others. I also place importance on having a cause and I encourage others to take up a cause as well. Everybody will have something different, something that has particular significance to them, and that is all totally fine. Some people want to save the planet, some want to spread their religion, some want to spread democracy, these things are all very good. For they are beyond satisfying immediate needs and gratifying the senses. And I agree that it might feel a bit too high-minded at first. You might think, "that's too idealistic". But once you try and put it into practice, you will find that it's satisfying on the soul level. It gives you something that food or sex or TV can never give you. After all, I trust that you don't want to be someone who is, say, only interested in sex. When people talk about you, you don't want them to say "he's a sex addict". You don't want people to say, "he only cares about food". Nor, "he's a competitive gamer and he games all day everyday". I don't know about you, but I know that I want people to say this about me: "she crusades". Thank you for reading.

2026-07-15 20:31:47 UTC

Some people like to criticize the Bible as being primitive writing. And the Bible does mention practices and beliefs that seem ignorant to us in the modern time. However, I just want to point out that this is not a fair way of looking at it. The Bible is not meant to be a manual. It's about teaching people about matters that are of a spiritual nature, faith, that which is unseen, what it means to believe, and such. Let me put it this way: science, and knowledge, are about not believing anything by faith; whereas the Bible, is all about believing by faith. Now, I am not saying one is better than the other. But rather, they are totally different things. True, you will not be able to find out from the Bible how to build an atomic bomb, or how to cure bacterial infections, or how the human immune system works. and it's because it's not about those things. In fact, the textbooks we currently have, will probably all be obsolete in about a few decades' time. But it's been 2000 years, and some of the things the Bible talks about are still relevant to us today, and will probably remain so for as long as humans stay the way they are. and I say this as a non-Christian. I have read parts of the Bible and I can honestly tell you that it just draws me in. It makes me ponder. I didn't gain scientific knowledge from it, but I have gained understanding, and insight into weighty matters. I am not saying you have to believe in the Bible. Just that it's not fair to compare it to say, a university textbook. That's not what the Bible is trying to be.
Another thing is that people often focus on superficial stuff in the Bible, you know, the unimportant things, and make a big deal out of it. For example, people would say that virgin birth is impossible. I mean, we live in the 21st century, we have come a long way in terms of scientific knowledge, we are taught biology in high schools. Do you really think it's some kind of achievement to point out the impossibility of virgin birth? I am not defending virgin birth, I don't believe it either, but trotting it out as proof that the Bible is a bunch of bunk is just stupid. For the era that it was written in, which is two thousands years ago, the Bible was revolutionary. Yes, there are embellishments throughout the book, but overly focusing on them blinds you to the many messages that the book contains.
Any atheist can criticize the Bible; it takes a special kind of atheist to appreciate it.

2026-07-15 20:31:16 UTC

This article is addressed to women. I have been reading incel literature on the internet, and one thing really stood out to me: men are complaining that women are attracted to all kinds of unsavory men, such as bullies and narcissistic men. Even literal criminals and murderers. I don't know if this is true, however, my own observations are that a lot of women do seem to make really poor choices in a mate. Quite a few of them seem to genuinely think NBA players, rock stars, hedge fund managers, the famous, the powerful...etc are top choices for them. About this I really lament. These people have a patina to them, they look good, and most women are fooled by it. They don't know that these people don't build a great country, they don't maintain our societies, they don't cure diseases nor do they help the helpless. I want to tell women of our world that, by our choice in a man, we decide what our society will look like. If we all mate with convicts, then the next generation will be full of thieves, rapists and murderers. If we all mate with football and basketball stars, the next generation will simply be good at sports, which in and of itself isn't something worthwhile. Athletes don't build a peaceful, prosperous, just society. So what, a woman might ask me, makes a truly good mate? I am glad you asked. The answer is, a man of virtue. The word virtue sounds a bit archaic, so I will use a different term: a man of virtue is essentially a man who has admirable personal qualities. Think salt of the earth, the men who really make the country what it is today.
I will give a list of admirable qualities in a man, that women should value:
compassion
kindness
moral integrity
honesty
considerate of other people's feelings
spiritual; wants more than just money out of life
does not think about how to harm or swindle or cheat or otherwise mistreat a fellow human
believes in something
honor
So basically, things that sound boring at first, but are actually incredibly important when we think about it. Contemporary society might try and tell you that these ideas are outdated, that they are not "cool" or "hip" anymore. Don't listen to it. A man who checks quite a few of this list (doesn't have to check all of them) is not only someone who will build and maintain society, he will also treat you very well. Your marriage to this man will be happy and blissful. Furthermore, he will love your children as well as be a role model to them.
Of course, the qualities I listed aren't the only ones that matter. There are quite a few others that are also very important but are not absolutely necessary:
conviction (this means having strong beliefs)
spartan courage
contemplative
crusading
perseverance in the face of adversity
humility
And many others, depending on what you personally value.
You will find that I did not list intelligence and reason on either list. It's not because I don't think these are important. But rather, l left them out because I feel that there is an overemphasis on them in our contemporary society. And the qualities I mentioned have fallen by the way side. Also, I left out charisma, which some people are fascinated by, but it is actually a pretty useless quality in my book. A prosperous society is not built on the backs of charismatic people. In fact, the more plain and ordinary a man is, paradoxically, the more he builds and contributes to society.
I also left out good looks, for similar reasons. Of course, not saying it doesn't play a role in attraction, just that it's not so important that it eclipses these essential qualities. As long as a man isn't positively ugly to you, it's good enough.
Lastly, a few words about some stuff I read on the incel wiki. I have seen the pictures of supposedly very ugly incels like eggman and blackopssaint or whatever his name is. These men don't look that ugly to me. I feel that they are just very average looking men. True, they are no Brad Pitt. But they aren't demonically ugly either. If there is a man in real life who looks like eggman, but he is truly courageous, honorable, and he has strong principles that he is willing to die for, then he is the ideal man to me and I will totally overlook his less than perfect physical looks. Nothing is sexier than a man who has virtues.

2026-07-15 20:28:58 UTC

I want to talk about the fact some people insist that homosexuality is a sexual orientation instead of a mental illness. I just want to say that whether something is a mental illness, is a matter of definition, not a matter of facts or science. For example, the statement "All humans have a Y chromosome" is a matter of facts. We can go out there and see if it's true that indeed all humans have a Y chromosome. And if we find one human who doesn't, then the statement all humans have a Y chromosome is false. Yet, if we say, "A man is a human who has a Y chromosome" then it's a matter of definition. We are defining what is a man. It's not a matter of facts anymore. And the fact there are fierce debates about what a man is, proves my point. If it was a matter of facts, then it would be settled very easily. But it isn't. Similarly, "homosexuality is a mental illness", as well as "homosexuality is a sexual orientation, it is not a mental illness" are both statements of definition. Someone from one camp might say to the other camp that they are wrong, when what she really means is that she strongly disagrees with their definition. She can't prove them wrong, because definitions are by nature subjective and as a result of this subjectiveness, cannot be proven wrong. The only reason we as a society are starting to believe that homosexuality is not a mental illness, is because there are more and more people who insist that homosexuality is not a mental illness. This is entirely political and has nothing to do with either science and facts. In fact, all I need to do is to gather up a bunch of people who believe homosexuality is a mental illness, and we act really aggressive, loud and pushy, and we cow other people into silence, then guess what? Society would start to change, and start to accept once again that homosexuality is a mental illness. Like I said, nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with politics. In fact, next time you see a strident lefty loudly proclaiming that homosexuality is a sexual orientation instead of a mental illness, say to her, "Prove it". It will shut her right up.

2026-07-15 20:28:11 UTC

We know that, for some people, there is little job security for them, due to the types of jobs they tend to get. It could be a fast food restaurant cashier job that is in danger of being replaced by automation. It could be unskilled labor positions that can easily be replaced by newer and newer machines. So, naturally, a lot of us go for jobs that are more difficult to replace. These are typically jobs that require a lot of training, such as medical doctor, for one example. What we don't realize, is that in the eyes of the elites that run our world, doctors are still replaceable, for the very simple reason that they serve the public, rather than the elites themselves. Doctors think they are essential members to society because they diagnose and treat diseases. But the people they treat and diagnose, namely the public, are themselves of little value to the elites. Reality is that if some or even quite a few of the public become ill and die off, it is of little concern to the elites. The elites only have use for the few doctors that keep themselves healthy. The rest of the doctors, are expendable to them, because the public that these doctors serve is expendable to them.

2026-07-15 20:26:37 UTC

@@@
We often hear that we as consumers can change how businesses are run, this is only true to a very limited extent. The truth is, changing demographics do dictate what is depicted in ads, but it's not because we the consumers are the boss of businesses.
There is a new model for women's apparel called Ashley Graham. She is plus-sized, and has dark brown hair. We think that she's chosen to represent brands because companies are listening to what we are saying, but the truth is very far from that. She is chosen because most women in our societies have become fat. So they picked a fat woman so that we can relate better. And as a whole, we are getting darker and darker due to shifting demographics, and companies realized that having a blond-haired model would not resonate with the average woman as much. But they got us thinking that we changed the face of the advertising industry. No, we didn't.
Advertising is full of tricks intended to fool us. Have you noticed how the woman used in advertising that is directed at men, is very often blond? For example, books on how to attract women usually have a blonde woman on the cover. When online dating sites want to draw in clients, which is typically male, often the image of a blonde is used. This is because businesses and advertisers know that a lot of men desire and fantasize about these women. Ads for high end jewelry also feature blond-haired women very often, because advertisers know that men covet blondes and will spend huge amounts of money on them to keep them in a relationship. Whereas in ads for jewelry that tends to be more low-end (read: they are cheaper), very often a brunette is used. Brunettes like jewelry just as much as blondes, but they are not as desired by men so the amounts men are willing to spend on them tend to be lower. Hence the lower-end and lower-priced jewelry. When an ad is directed towards women, very often a brunette is used. Ads for things like, a new seltzer drink, crackers, cosmetics, fashion, jewelry...etc, things that the ordinary women consume. And this is because the majority of the female consumers are dark-haired. But they tell us that there is true diversity in advertising, which isn't a lie, but what they neglect to tell us is that we are simply being marketed to. We are merely consumers to whom products are sold. We don't actually have a whole lot of power over what's seen in ads, and there are formulas in advertising that companies adhere to closely.

2026-07-15 20:25:25 UTC

I have read online that the government might use the military to force the covid "vaccines" on the unwilling. Not sure how credible a threat this is, but we should prepare for it, just in case.
I think we should reach out to members of the armed forces, most of whom tend to be white (for now), and therefore have a conscience and are not terribly likely to do something barbaric like that. I have known about militia groups, and while I think the idea behind them is good (the populace should always arm itself), nevertheless we must not treat the military like it's our enemy. Yes the military is technically a part of the government, however its members are regular people just like us. They are not super opposed to us like, say, the FBI.
I say we should bring them to our side, reach out to them just like we do regular Americans, and do not antagonize them. Make them see things our way. In fact, I think the benefits of doing so go far beyond vaccines. If we have the military's support, we can in theory seize power and the government (this is known as a coup). Not to mention we will also be able to neutralize the feds, if it really comes to that. It's like Chairman Mao said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. In fact, the fact the government have been trying hard to put Mexicans in the military tells us about the strategic importance of the military. So, I say, go forth and win the hearts and minds of servicemen, servicewomen, privates, generals, and everyone in between.

2026-07-15 20:23:26 UTC

Here's how the rich see us:
They think that if we are poor, that means we have inferior genetics and we deserve to live in poverty and the squalor that comes with it. They would prefer that we starve to death, so that they won't have to look at us on the street but if that's not possible, then at least we should struggle just to survive and not take up resources that could have gone to them. They also believe that the fact we are not good with money like they are means we are trash and we should become extinct so as to make room on earth for them and their money-savvy, genetically superior offspring.
Oh and by the way, do you know what's really behind all this talk about protecting our environment and saving our planet, about how we should try and reduce our carbon footprint and all that? Well I will tell you: it is the elites, who see themselves as vastly superior to us. And of course, to them, their own offspring are also vastly superior to us. But they see us use up resources, space, eat up food, produce waste products and all these things all end up polluting the planet in someway, the planet that their superior offspring should be able to enjoy in a pristine state. So, they talk through the various media arms their vast riches bought them, to brainwash us into reducing our consumption and sometimes even into limiting our own reproduction, just so that we plebs will get smaller and smaller in size, which makes room for their superior bloodlines. This is why you often see glaringly hypocritical display of elites flying everywhere in their jet planes that take up huge amounts of gasses that they told us we should try to emit less, and they do pretty everything they preach us not to do. Don't fall for it. I mean, I dont have a problem with protecting the planet, but they key thing is that everybody should do their equal part. I will not stand for being told that I should eat less meat or drive an electric car when some billionaire jet all over the globe in their planes.

2026-07-15 20:20:04 UTC

Very often, the government's interests are at odds with regular people's interests:
You, as a regular person, want the economy to be good, so that you can find a job, and have an income. You want to make money, so you can find a wife, buy a house, and then raise two kids in that house with her. These things are what's good for you and your genes, so you want them. But look at things from the elites' perspective. Why should they work hard to make the economy run smoothly so that you can raise a family? This does not benefit the elites, nor their genes. So they don't care and run the economy into the ground in a way that harms you but benefits them. Once you realize this about them, everything will start to make sense. It will start to become clear why governments do seemingly stupid things that harm their citizens; and it's because governments are controlled by elites who do not share the same genetic destiny as you. They want to harm you.
It really helps to put ourselves in the shoes of these alien, rich, ruling elites. I imagine this is how they think: "How do I run things in a way that will benefit me and my cronies but screw everybody else." You see, they aren't satisfied with enriching themselves, they actively want others to suffer. It literally bothers them to see us well-fed, happy and carefree. If something is a win-win for everybody, they will go out of their way to avoid it. It's hard for normal people to imagine there can be this kind of people, but trust me they exist. Evolution has made them so.
I remember this news I read about a prince of the king of some third world county. This prince was said to have presented a very famous American singer with a 5 million dollar necklace. Do you think the prince did any kind of work to have earned that $ 5 million for himself? I am sure he didn't. That necklace was paid for by the sweat of the people his father ruled. You see, giving expensive jewelry to a famous singer has benefits for him. Maybe she will sleep with him for a few nights. Why should he forgo that just so that a few more people in his country will not starve? This is how nations' rulers see it. And I can assure you the elites of your country see things this way too. So they take and take and take from us. Taking from us is good for them in another way-- it makes the men among us unable to compete with them for mates. Men with superior genetics can normally obtain desirable women. However, they will be put at a severe disadvantage by elites who manage to impoverish them. Poor men tend not to be able to attract women as easily. This is how the elites keep their sexual competitors down. Ensuring the masses are prosperous is not only hard work, it also prevents the hoarding of women. We need to forget about fairness, justice, creating a better world.. etc. Also forget about appealing to these elites' sense of nobility. We have to know that these people did not get to where they are by being fair, high-minded and noble. These elites are Homo Sapiens in name only. In essence, they are very intelligent animals. So to know what they think, we need to think like an animal. We need to know that asking these elites nicely to take care of us does not work. They literally need to be forced to do so. Sometimes violently.

2026-07-15 20:16:04 UTC

I don't need to be convinced of bias in printed and traditional news media because I know it already. Now I want to talk about something else: bias in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has a strong neo-Liberal bias. The site seems to have been weaponized to smear anybody and any organization to the right of center. A list of words they like to employ: the far right, extremist, conspiracy theorist/theory, Trump supporter...etc etc and these groups and people are all political dissenters and the regime's detractors.
Also, It bills itself as the free and impartial encyclopedia that anybody can edit, however, the reality is that they seem to have dedicated staff whose only job is to watch for any edits people make and instantly change it back to what it was before. A regular person with a job and a life can never win these "edit wars". Wikipedia likes to brag about how anybody can edit their articles, which technically is true. however, what's the point of it, if they have dedicated staff sitting on the board whose only job is to change any edit back?
Anyway, just wondering what your experience with Wikipedia is.
I was reading this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearing_blonde_gene#Scientific_position
So basically, they are crying that as long as there are blond genes, there will be blonds. This is false.
It is simply not enough for blond looks to persist just because there are a few blond genes floating around in the gene pool. The frequency of people carrying blond genes must be high enough for them to find and mate with one another, in order for the blond looks to manifest.
When there is a closed gene pool, think an all Northern/Western European population, people with blond genes will mate with other blonds or other carriers of blond genes reasonably frequently, their blond genes will combine, thus producing a blond haired child. But, if the gene pool is open, such as what we currently have, where lots of black-haired immigrants are introduced into the gene pool, then there is no closed gene pool anymore. Blonds and carriers of blond genes might mate with these black-haired people, and if nothing is done about it, this will result in fewer and fewer opportunities for the blond looks to manifest, because the blond genes will have a harder and harder time finding one another to combine with. I guess you can argue that blond looks haven't technically been completely wiped out; but if the frequency of blond looks goes from being, say, 5 % of the population, to being 0.00000000005 % of the population, then yes, blond looks have been effectively wiped out.
Of course, Wikipedia is very dishonest. They keep squawking about blond genes not disappearing, which is not what people are even talking about. People are worried about blond LOOKS disappearing. They are not worried about blond GENES disappearing. But they produced this dogshit of an article to lull white people back to sleep. And when I tried to edit the article, predictably, it got changed back within 3 minutes. And people still don't believe me when I tell them that there are dedicated staff on Wikipedia whose only job is to un-edit the articles.
Wikipedia is deliberately misrepresenting the question. The true question is, "Will blond looks disappear?" It's not, "Will blond genes disappear?" Also, regarding Wikipedia changing our edits back in 3 minutes. Wikipedia likes to brag about how their site can be edited by anyone. Which technically is true, however, what they don't tell us is that they will simply change it back. What is the point of allowing everybody to edit, if you are just gonna change it back in 3 minutes? In fact, Wikipedia is so dishonest, I would not be surprised that if it was bankrolled by that rich globalist billionaire jerk, George Soros. He also bankrolls Snopes, which purports to fact-check, but all it does is stink.

2026-07-15 20:13:46 UTC

I saw the following title and have some comments: "white men no longer want to fight for a country that scorns them. The ranks of the armed forces will now be filled with 3rd world mercenaries who are promised American citizenship."
Indeed. And while it's good that white men are starting to reject this country's government by refusing to enlist, there is a problem: the federal government will just turn to the pool of illegal brown-skinned people. This is bad because while we all know Mexicans (and related) are not as competent as white people, nevertheless they can still inflict quite a bit of damage when outfitted with the latest war technology. I believe that the ruling elites in the government are biding their time. They are waiting for the military to be sufficiently brown. When that happens, they will sic them on white Americans. Brown people have zero compunction about killing in general, and they have even less compunction about killing the hated whitey.
So, I say that it's not enough for white men to shun military service. They must actively arm themselves in preparation for the incoming onslaught by the military of their own country.

2026-07-15 20:10:18 UTC

Good people should encourage their kids to become doctors, this is so that there won't be a landslide of "experts" recommending gender-bending therapies for kids, or doctors prescribing Ritalin to kids who are just very energetic. We also need more good doctors who are good people exposing the dangers of Covid "vaccines". Not to mention that regular folk need doctors who genuinely care about them. Did you know? The Natural Sciences are some of the least politically correct spaces in academia.
The kids of good people should be encouraged to go into all positions of power, especially the military, the media and the federal government. While grassroots efforts are much needed, we also need warriors occupying the upper echelons of power.

2026-07-15 19:52:48 UTC

Immigrants like to think they are contributing to the society just because they pay taxes. And some very confused white people also think that, too. No, no, no. You see, paying the taxes is just the barest minimum of being a good citizen. I do not consider it to be some kind of achievement worthy of praise. Besides, the fact immigrants have the money to pay taxes necessarily means that that they have jobs. And when an immigrant has a job, it necessarily means that he has taken the job away from a native-born American. Why do I say that? Well, if immigrants themselves could create jobs, they would have done that already when they were in their home countries. And then they wouldn't need to come here. But since they did come to the West, then it must mean that they cannot create jobs (or the kinds of jobs worth having) back home and have to come here in search of it. So, the fact an immigrant is paying taxes is literally him/her declaring to the world: "Hi, I have robbed a native-born American of his/her job".